- There is no suspicion regarding Kim Seung-won's solicitation... It is all fact and crime
- Didn't know because of a humanities background? He should have said that to broker Yang
- Judging by their stance, they will push the appointment through even if private home photos are released
- Pushing through despite public opposition will become an inflection point for the president
- Controversy over source of materials? Anything can be disclosed if it serves the public interest
- Hunting down whistleblowers is voyeurism contrary to the public interest... abuse of power
- Cabinet politics? The real cabinet that the ruling party should fear is at Yang's home
- Criticism over harsh language? You cannot win when being kind while fighting an enemy
- Playing solo? I consulted extensively with People Power Party lawmakers as well
- Suspension of lawmaker qualifications? An act of dictatorship unbefitting an advanced nation
- Jang Dong-hyeok attacking me in the same voice as the ruling party... Regrettable
- Criticism over being prosecutor-like? One must be like a prosecutor when dealing with criminals
- Kim Min-seok's criticism of Righteous Prosecutors' Society? Him pocketing 900 million won is the real filth
 
■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM)
■ Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2026
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Independent Lawmaker Han Dong-hoon
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: From now on, let us hear this person's evaluation of how he watched yesterday's confirmation hearing for Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won. Joining us is Independent Lawmaker Han Dong-hoon. Hello.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Nice to meet you. It has been a while.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: It has been a while. Regarding nominee Kim Seung-won, Lawmaker Han was actually the first to persistently and strongly raise allegations of illicit solicitation involving the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Yes.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: There was a confirmation hearing yesterday. There were questions from People Power Party lawmakers, and there were nominee Kim Seung-won's answers. How do you view it? Having watched it yesterday, some of the suspicions you raised might have been resolved, and some might not have been. How did it look to you?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: The suspicions were already resolved long ago. Because it is all true, there is no suspicion. Upon receiving a request from a female broker from a room salon, he called and texted the head of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety to use pull so she could make a fortune. As a result, the clinical trial passed, and poison was fed to 93 citizens of the Republic of Korea. He admits all of this himself. He is merely tacking on long-winded excuses behind it. He is talking like that. There is no suspicion. Suspicions have been cleared. It is not a suspicion; it is fact, and it is a crime.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Take an example. Did you kill someone or not? That would be a suspicion. But what he is saying is, "It's true I killed someone, but prosecution was suspended, right? And how did you find this out?" There is no such thing as a suspicion in this matter anymore.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: You must have watched closely yesterday. From Lawmaker Han's perspective, among the answers nominee Kim Seung-won gave, what was the least understandable?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: None of it was understandable.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Is that so?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: I do not understand why he was crying there. I want to say this. And he didn't know because he has a humanities background? He should have said that to Yang Su-jin. When Yang Su-jin said, "Oppa, pull some strings with the Food and Drug Ministry for this," he should have said, "I have a humanities background, so I know nothing about this. If something goes wrong with medicine, it will be a disaster." Now is not the time to come to a confirmation hearing and talk about a humanities background while asking to be made minister.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: You wanted to participate as a hearing committee member, but it did not happen. Hypothetically speaking, if you had been there yesterday, what would you have asked?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: In the end, during these 15 days—meaning since the nomination, where I raised issues at the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts from day one—the citizens' hearing was faithfully carried out and has ended. Kim Seung-won's side gave all kinds of untenable answers, but didn't they lay out their position? There is no suspicion. It is fact, and it is a crime.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: By any chance, the photo taken at the residence—are you willing to disclose that?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: But looking at their current posture, even if a photo taken privately at night in the residence is disclosed, or further, even if a video is released, they are in a position to push ahead anyway. I think this is an absurd situation. If they were holding out while lying that this isn't true, it might be different. But they are essentially arguing, "This is true, and the 'oppa poison lobbying' is true, but what are you going to do about it? We have the majority numbers." They are destroying the Republic of Korea. That is what I want to say.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: May I understand that to mean there is no particular need to disclose it because he will be appointed anyway?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Please wait and see.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Saying "wait and see" means he might not be appointed?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: I believe the citizens of the Republic of Korea will not accept someone who shamelessly pushes forward after admitting to 'oppa poison lobbying' as head of the "Ministry of Justice." The most unjust person is taking the post that ought to be the most just.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Looking at yesterday's press conference, you used the phrase "crossroads of history." It seems to carry the meaning that if the president appoints nominee Kim Seung-won, it will become a crossroads of history. What exactly does that mean?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Nominee Kim Seung-won gave me a nickname. He called me an "enemy of democracy." If stopping the real enemy of democracy makes me an enemy of democracy, I want to say here that I will gladly be that enemy of democracy a hundred times over.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: This plainly demonstrates before the entire nation how the Lee Jae-myung administration views the people. Even when all citizens oppose it, and Hankyoreh, Kyunghyang, OhmyNews, and No Cut News all oppose it, he insists on placing the filthiest person in the position that ought to be the cleanest, as if to show off. Will the people tolerate this? On top of that, real estate is blowing up, diplomacy is blowing up, and under these circumstances, citizens will consider Kim Seung-won's appointment an inflection point. That is what I believe.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: That sounds like you mean things will get worse if the president appoints nominee Kim Seung-won.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: I think we must take to the streets.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Take to the streets? Many media outlets predict that the president will still appoint nominee Kim Seung-won considering the importance of the Justice Minister position.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: If he considers the importance, he will not be able to appoint him; if he looks down on the public, he will appoint him.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Then if appointed, you take to the streets?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: I believe many people will come out to the streets.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Does that mean—how should I express this? Yesterday you also said, "Three years is too long."
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Can an administration that shamelessly appoints an 'oppa poison lobbyist' as the head of the "Ministry of Justice" last three more years? That is what I think.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Then your thought is that appointing the minister will worsen President Lee Jae-myung's situation and meet immense public resistance, right?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: I assert, "He will not be able to complete his term."
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Cannot complete his term? If people take to the streets, will you go out as well?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Let me just say that much for now. You will find out gradually as time goes by.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Is that so? Lawmaker, do you have more material in hand? For example, in case the president makes the appointment.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Their stance is to appoint him even if a video is released. That is how I see it.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: You are saying they will make the appointment no matter what? Understood. But what the ruling Democratic Party is taking the biggest issue with is questioning the source of these materials. They are asking, "Didn't you bring this from the prosecution?"
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: It is like a criminal arguing, "How did you find out?" Isn't that right?
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: What is your stance on this?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: And they were talking about an indictment plan or something similar; other media outlets like KBS, Hankyoreh, and No Cut all reported similar things. Those reports were not wrong. As long as it serves the public interest, anything can be reported, and lawmakers must disclose it. Does it serve the public interest? Isn't preventing an 'oppa poison lobbyist' from becoming the head of the "Ministry of Justice" a massive public interest? Naturally it is in the public interest. It is not just an indictment plan; even far more confidential material should rightfully be disclosed.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Let me tell you this. What if it were not an indictment plan, but a "martial law plan"?
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: A martial law plan?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Suppose someone obtained a martial law plan. Should that be disclosed or not? Then, if someone involved in the martial law plan provided it to the outside, did they do something wrong? I believe the core and essence of everything is whether the purpose is the public interest. Also, they keep demanding that I expose the whistleblower. I want to say that this is voyeurism contrary to the public interest. People are curious. It is understandable to be curious.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: I am curious too.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: In the 1974 Watergate scandal, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein revealed numerous documents and details. Weren't many people curious about that as well? Wondering where Deep Throat was. In 2005, the whistleblower revealed himself. That is normal. And to the many public interest whistleblowers across the country, I say once again: Please report to Han Dong-hoon. I will risk my life to protect you.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Speaking of risking your life to protect them, Lawmaker Kim Dong-ah filed a criminal complaint against you. So on Sunday, he was questioned as a complainant at the Yeongdeungpo Police Station, and he did an interview with me yesterday. Now the next step inevitably means an investigation will head toward Lawmaker Han. There might be a summons as a suspect or questioning as a respondent. Are you preparing a response to that?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: That is pathetic talk. That person is a Daejang-dong lawyer, isn't he? The Daejang-dong lawyers are having a feast. And that person keeps saying things like this. Not just him, but the Democratic Party keeps talking about what happened to cabinets,
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: To be precise, when Lawmaker Kim Dong-ah was interviewed yesterday, he said there is suspicion that since major cases were supposed to be reported to the Justice Minister when you were minister, didn't you keep those reported materials and release them now? Because transcripts and such were summarized, and Lawmaker Han wouldn't have summarized them personally, so didn't you hold onto the summary attached as supplementary reporting material for the minister and open it now?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: They seem to think everyone else in the world is as lazy and immoral as they are. Of course that is not the case. And they keep saying "cabinet, cabinet." Like things are piled up in cabinets and pulled out cleanly as in the movie The King starring Jung Woo-sung. There is no such thing. If there were, wouldn't they have disclosed it themselves to seize power? Let me say this: There is a real cabinet.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Where?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: The real cabinet is not at the prosecutors' office; it is at Yang Su-jin's home. That is what the Democratic Party should fear. From now on, the Democratic Party will grovel and be dragged around by Yang Su-jin, and even now they are being dragged around while referring to Yang Su-jin as a solid entrepreneur. It is pathetic.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Then, regarding Lawmaker Kim Dong-ah's personal suspicion, you mean it was not reported to you as Justice Minister?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Isn't that point in time long after I left the post of Justice Minister? The timing of that plan or whatever they mention would be much later, wouldn't it?
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: The timing is later, but yesterday Lawmaker Kim Dong-ah said that since you were ruling party leader and a former Justice Minister, you might have received something—that was the gist.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Go ask Kim Min-seok, the Daejang-dong lawyer. Is Party Leader Kim Min-seok receiving materials from the Ministry of Justice right now?
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: You mean it is structurally impossible.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: One should not spout nonsense like that.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: This is not some Daejang-dong gambling den.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Then in any case, as you said before, your position is that you did not receive it from the prosecution, right?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Even if I had received it from the prosecution, it would be fine. But under the current Lee Jae-myung administration, there is no one in the prosecution gutsy enough to hand that over. I find that regrettable. However, receiving it from the prosecution for the public interest is acceptable. Doesn't exposing the reality of this 'oppa poison lobbying' align with the public interest? Returning to the point, these people are continuously arguing that the 'oppa poison lobbying' was legitimate. The public doesn't see it that way, do they? In order to expose the 'oppa poison lobbying,' materials from the prosecution, police, National Intelligence Service, Defense Counterintelligence Command, or SBS—any of it—can be exposed. Nevertheless, I state that I did not receive those materials.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Even if police ask about that in their investigation, you will not disclose who you received it from because you must protect the public interest whistleblower, right?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Such an investigation would be an abuse of power. Under the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act, lawmakers have an obligation to protect whistleblowers and must not reveal their identities; if revealed, one faces criminal punishment, just as Lawmaker Park Jeong-hoon and I filed a complaint against Lawmaker Park Sun-won. If the police force that, the police should also face criminal punishment.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Looking back at the process so far, let me ask about things media outlets have pointed out regarding Lawmaker Han.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Here?
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Rather than here, in various legacy media. There was this point: the language was somewhat harsh. There was criticism over rough phrasing, asking if words that didn't need to be used or provocative expressions were really necessary. What do you think about that?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Honestly, I wish the people I love were kind and pleasant. I make a conscious effort. Conversations I had with the sweet rice grandmother during the Busan Buk-gu election or conversations with young citizens there—I think that is my original, everyday self.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: But when fighting single-handedly against the true enemies of democracy who fed poison to citizens and want to become ministers, you cannot fight and you cannot win using such soft words. I am an instrument of the people. I am a tool of the people. The people are not my tool; I am the people's tool. Right now, the people want me to fight fiercely against those enemies of democracy here and win. That is why I do this. I really value grace and dignity. But I believe true political dignity means jumping into the mud at times like this to rescue the people who are in danger of sinking into the mud.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Another point was raised: why play solo instead of coordinating? For instance, if working with People Power Party lawmakers was difficult, why not share materials with lawmakers close to Han in the People Power Party, form a scrum, and lead this together so it wouldn't be lonely and could be more effective? Some pointed out, "Why play solo?"
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Let me tell you that I consulted, discussed, and led this situation together with many People Power Party lawmakers, including some on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Is that so?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Lawmaker Yoon Sang-hyun, for instance, met with me separately, and during the hearing process, we kept in touch and consulted on what points or remarks would be good.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Ah, with Lawmaker Yoon Sang-hyun.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: People on the outside seem to say that without knowing well. However, there is this aspect: you mean, for example, distributing the information received from the public interest report and having others expose it. In that case, the risk of exposing the whistleblower increases. Wouldn't that be so? Even now, the Democratic Party is raising an absolute uproar, right? They are practically creating chaos demanding that I expose the whistleblower. I expected this kind of uproar. It is better for me to absorb these attacks and this frenzy alone; if distributed, wouldn't each and every lawmaker face criminal complaints just the same? I thought that was unnecessary. This is an area where I can stand alone, fight, and win. And didn't the whistleblower provide it because they trusted me?
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: In the end, regarding protecting the whistleblower, and considering that other lawmakers would also be attacked if I distributed it, I felt I had to prevent that, so I took the brunt and exposed things one by one.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. As a politician, an independent lawmaker rather than outside parliament as in the past, and a presidential contender, one cannot help but instinctively calculate gains and losses when taking political action. Before starting, one calculates what would be a plus or a minus, and after it ends, there must be a self-evaluation of what was gained and what was lost. How about in this arena of nominee Kim Seung-won's hearing?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: I believe a good politician must act boldly without looking left or right when making major decisions. A sense of justice, and what aligns with the interests of the community and the people. That is what I did this time as well. Calculations can be made, but calculations aren't necessarily right. And if I had calculated like that, I would not have acted the way I did on the night of December 3, 2024. When making big decisions, I move without calculation.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Then, looking back, does that mean you feel you didn't only gain things, but also lost some things? Gains and losses.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Nothing in the world comes free. But that issue is secondary. I engage in politics genuinely for the country to do well. I believed it was a direction helpful for the country's success, and if so, I see no reason to hesitate. At times like this, you just go for it.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Even if there are some losses, you accept them?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: I have done so, and I will continue to do so.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Talk of expulsion from parliament and suspension of qualifications did emerge. Of course, Leader Kim Min-seok withdrew it, saying, "I changed my mind toward excluding him from parliamentary expulsion or qualification suspension for the time being." How do you view this? While expulsion might be difficult due to quorum requirements, suspension of qualifications could be achieved with Democratic Party seats alone if they revise the legislation and push it through, couldn't it?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: That is dictatorship. Let me put it briefly: Dictators? If you can't bite, don't even bark.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: So you believe they won't be able to do it in the end?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Whether they do it or not is entirely up to them. But I believe the people are watching whether that kind of dictatorial act suits the advanced nation of the Republic of Korea in 2026.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Recently, Party Leader Jang posted this message on social media regarding Lawmaker Han's expulsion: "A typical attack on the messenger and a petty diversion." The media interpreted it as an unusual defense of Lawmaker Han. What do you think about that?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: I believe everyone must join forces to stand against this kind of 'oppa poison lobbying' administration. Yet even after that, the Jang Dong-hyeok mainstream leadership faction continues to attack me, speaking with the same voice as the Democratic Party. I find that regrettable.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: While taking the lead in this matter, do you feel any resentment toward the People Power Party leadership or mainstream faction regarding their remarks or actions toward Lawmaker Han? For instance, wishing they had stepped forward just a bit more actively to make you a hearing committee member, so yesterday's hearing in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee wouldn't have ended like that.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Look at the rough waves I have endured over the years. Should I be disappointed over something like that?
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Is that so? Understood. It seems it wasn't brought up at yesterday's confirmation hearing, but Lawmaker Son Seol requested and received your support committee expenditure records from the National Election Commission. How do you view that?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: That is absurd. Digging into someone's background like that—isn't that the very definition of cabinet politics? But open that cabinet all you want. I say go ahead and open it. And let me make clear that the National Election Commission is only permitted to provide materials directly related to the hearing.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Since we don't have much time left, let me touch upon two quick things. One critique from those who have high expectations for you is whether leading this matter pushed you back toward the aggressive striker image of the past, rather than the gentle politician image shown during the last Busan Buk-gu election—whether the image of the tough, special investigations prosecutor has resurfaced. Some expressed regret over that.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: When dealing with criminals, one must be like a prosecutor. And when dealing with citizens, one must be endlessly gentle and kind. I will continue to be that way.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. There is one more thing. Regarding past political fund receipt allegations, Party Leader Kim Min-seok said, "It was a case of falling victim to the first product of prosecutors belonging to the Righteous Prosecutors' Society." He spoke as if former President Yoon Suk-yeol and Lawmaker Han Dong-hoon were central figures in his political fund receipt case. What is your response to that?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: That wasn't a case I handled, but did Leader Kim Min-seok not greedily pocket that 900 million won? To be precise, it was 920 million won. It is true he greedily took it. And when I said he pocketed it, he claimed that word was 'filth.' Those were his own words.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: But calling out what was pocketed isn't filth; pocketing 920 million won is the real filth. And out of that 920 million won, he received 250 million won from a sponsor named Kang Shin-sung, as well as 4.5 million won every month. Yet as soon as he recently became party leader, he appointed that person as special advisor to the party leader for civic groups. That is selling offices. Democratic Party supporters should feel ashamed that such a person is serving as the Democratic Party leader.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: The expression "greedily pocketed" is rather strong.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Well, it is what I said, and since Leader Kim Min-seok responded to that specific wording, I think it is fine.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Let me note that some listeners tuning in might feel uncomfortable with it, as we are legacy media and a public broadcast. Lastly, let me ask one lighter question. Recently, looking at YouTube, I saw Lee Ha-neul of DJ DOC—I like his rapping too, he has groove. He appeared and asked something like, "I think Han Dong-hoon will do well. Does that mean I won't be able to live in Korea? What should I do?" When he posted that video, you left a comment saying you were a fan.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Clearly speaking, he doesn't seem to be someone who likes me. But I don't engage in politics only for those who like me. Besides, back in our day, wasn't DOC everywhere?
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: That is true.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: I always liked seeing people who had grievances against the world succeed.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: The exact wording was this. Lee Ha-neul's words were: "Right now on the Democratic Party side, whether it's Party Leader Kim Min-seok or Lawmaker Song Young-gil, whoever comes out won't stand a chance against Han Dong-hoon right now, right?" And then he said, "If this happens, won't I be unable to live in our country?" That was the gist. Understood.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Is this right? Was this the one?
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: That's right. That's the one. Show me. Show me once more.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Together once.
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: This, this, this, this. This is it, right?
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: That was "Dance with DOC," wasn't it?
 
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. We will wrap up here for today. So far, we have been speaking with Independent Lawmaker Han Dong-hoon. Thank you, Lawmaker.
 
▶ Han Dong-hoon: Thank you.

The copyright of this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing the full text or citing the interview in reporting,
please specify the channel name and exact program name as shown below.

[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]