The People Power Party held an urgent discussion on August 4, urging President Yoon Suk Yeol to exercise his veto power against the proposed amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law.
Jang Dong-hyuk, the party leader, warned during the discussion titled 'Urgent Forum on the Unconstitutionality of Abolishing Supplementary Investigation Rights and Dismissal of Charges' that "if the grounds for dismissal of charges are added to cover President Yoon's offenses, the public will begin to erase the Yoon administration."
He referenced the recent plea from Kim Jin-joo (pseudonym), a victim of the 'Busan kickback incident,' who asked the president to exercise his veto. Jang lamented, "What better illustrates the essence of this malicious law than the reality where citizens are pleading for the state to 'be on the side of the victims'?"
He added, "If the president refuses to exercise his veto, the public will reject the Yoon administration. I hope he does not squander the last opportunity to prevent the downfall of his government."
Na Kyung-won, a co-host of the forum, criticized the administration's approach, stating, "They say they will gradually discuss all means and legal amendments for victim protection, but they have not provided any specifics on the timeline." She questioned, "Will establishing a dedicated department for victim protection within the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency truly protect victims?"
Na further pointed out, "From President Yoon's words and actions, it is clear that he understands the complete abolition of supplementary investigation rights will harm the public. The only change is the addition of a clause in Article 327 of the amendment that covers the president's offenses, which signals a self-serving interest to the public."
Experts who presented at the forum expressed concerns that the proposed amendment contains unconstitutional elements and could lead to serious confusion within the criminal justice system.
Professor Ji Sung-woo from Sungkyunkwan University Law School noted, "Terms like 'serious' and 'significantly' lack clear standards and scope in the law. The Ministry of Justice has also suggested further review regarding the principle of clarity."
He explained, "Cases where the Supreme Court recognized the abuse of prosecutorial discretion are based on exceptional and specific factual circumstances. The amendment effectively relaxes and expands the criteria compared to existing precedents, which could lead to arbitrary interpretations by the judiciary."
Professor Ji advised that the issues should be re-evaluated before implementation to dispel any misconceptions that the Criminal Procedure Law could be misused for specific political purposes. He recommended institutional safeguards, such as stipulating that cases already filed before the law's enactment would not be subject to its provisions.
Meanwhile, following President Yoon's remarks at a Cabinet meeting suggesting the passage of the amendment, Na emphasized, "The root cause of the destruction of the entire criminal justice system is solely the 'covering up of presidential offenses.' To prevent this destruction, the courts must resume the president's trial and deliver a swift verdict according to the law."
Jang Dong-hyuk, the party leader, warned during the discussion titled 'Urgent Forum on the Unconstitutionality of Abolishing Supplementary Investigation Rights and Dismissal of Charges' that "if the grounds for dismissal of charges are added to cover President Yoon's offenses, the public will begin to erase the Yoon administration."
He referenced the recent plea from Kim Jin-joo (pseudonym), a victim of the 'Busan kickback incident,' who asked the president to exercise his veto. Jang lamented, "What better illustrates the essence of this malicious law than the reality where citizens are pleading for the state to 'be on the side of the victims'?"
He added, "If the president refuses to exercise his veto, the public will reject the Yoon administration. I hope he does not squander the last opportunity to prevent the downfall of his government."
Na Kyung-won, a co-host of the forum, criticized the administration's approach, stating, "They say they will gradually discuss all means and legal amendments for victim protection, but they have not provided any specifics on the timeline." She questioned, "Will establishing a dedicated department for victim protection within the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency truly protect victims?"
Na further pointed out, "From President Yoon's words and actions, it is clear that he understands the complete abolition of supplementary investigation rights will harm the public. The only change is the addition of a clause in Article 327 of the amendment that covers the president's offenses, which signals a self-serving interest to the public."
Experts who presented at the forum expressed concerns that the proposed amendment contains unconstitutional elements and could lead to serious confusion within the criminal justice system.
Professor Ji Sung-woo from Sungkyunkwan University Law School noted, "Terms like 'serious' and 'significantly' lack clear standards and scope in the law. The Ministry of Justice has also suggested further review regarding the principle of clarity."
He explained, "Cases where the Supreme Court recognized the abuse of prosecutorial discretion are based on exceptional and specific factual circumstances. The amendment effectively relaxes and expands the criteria compared to existing precedents, which could lead to arbitrary interpretations by the judiciary."
Professor Ji advised that the issues should be re-evaluated before implementation to dispel any misconceptions that the Criminal Procedure Law could be misused for specific political purposes. He recommended institutional safeguards, such as stipulating that cases already filed before the law's enactment would not be subject to its provisions.
Meanwhile, following President Yoon's remarks at a Cabinet meeting suggesting the passage of the amendment, Na emphasized, "The root cause of the destruction of the entire criminal justice system is solely the 'covering up of presidential offenses.' To prevent this destruction, the courts must resume the president's trial and deliver a swift verdict according to the law."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.