[Q&A] Park Won-soon Victim's Side "Appealed to About 20 Seoul City Employees Including HR Personnel"

Kim Jae-ryeon, Chief Attorney at Law On-Sesang (second from left), is speaking at the "Second Press Conference on the Sexual Violence Case by the Mayor of Seoul" held at a press conference room in Jung-gu, Seoul, on the morning of the 22nd. From the left, Gomi-kyung, Executive Director of Korea Women's Hotline, Attorney Kim, Song Ran-hee, Secretary General of Korea Women's Hotline, Kim Hye-jung, Deputy Director of Korea Sexual Violence Counseling Center, and Lee Mi-kyung, Director of Korea Sexual Violence Counseling Center. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Jung-yoon] On the 22nd, the victim A, who accused the late former Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon of forced molestation, held a press conference at an undisclosed location in Seoul, urging a thorough investigation. The victim also claimed that despite suffering sexual harassment for about four years and appealing the facts to more than 20 Seoul city officials, including the HR manager, they consistently evaded responsibility and abetted the sexual harassment.

Below is the Q&A.

- Do you plan to participate in the Seoul City investigation team?

▲ Go Mi-kyung, Executive Director of Korea Women's Hotline = As can be seen from the statement, it has been decided not to participate.

- How many people and how many cases did the victim report the details of the damage to?

▲ Lawyer Kim Jae-ryeon (Legal representative of A) = Even based on what the victim remembers, before transferring departments, 17 people, and after transferring departments, 3 people. These people's ranks are higher than the victim's. Also included is the HR manager who should have reported this issue to a more responsible person. The summarized details were handed over to the investigative authorities, and since the investigation is ongoing, we ask for patience regarding the results.

- It is said that you went to the prosecution a day before going to the police. How did you contact the prosecution, and why did you go to the police?

▲ Lawyer Kim = On the 7th, before filing the complaint with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, the complaint was completed. After that, following consultation with the victim, I contacted the head of the Women's and Children's Investigation Department at the Central District Prosecutors' Office to request a meeting. However, they said it was difficult to have a meeting before the complaint was filed. I explained that due to the need to secure evidence, we wanted to file the complaint and immediately have the victim's statement through a meeting. At that time, they said they needed to know who the accused was to consider the meeting, so I disclosed the accused. Then, on the 8th at 3 p.m., the victim and I were scheduled to meet with the chief prosecutor.

However, on the evening of the 7th, the chief prosecutor said it would be difficult to meet due to their schedule. Since they planned to meet the victim on the 8th, they said it was inappropriate to submit the complaint to the Central District Prosecutors' Office before sharing the situation with the victim, so we contacted the Seoul Police Agency. According to the records, this was around 2:28 p.m. on the 8th. I asked the head of the Seoul Police investigation team by phone about the scope of cases the Seoul Police could investigate.

The team leader said cases involving women, children, intellectually disabled persons, and high-ranking public officials were possible. I said we planned to file a complaint regarding a high-ranking public official and requested an immediate investigation. Then, with the complaint and evidence, the victim and I went to the Seoul Police Agency and conducted the investigation until dawn the next day.

- What is your position on the court's dismissal of the search warrant for Seoul City Hall?

▲ Lawyer Kim = As the victim's representative lawyer, I deeply regret the dismissal of the search warrant. Filing the complaint on the 8th and taking the victim's statement until dawn the next day was to promptly seize devices possessed by the accused and uncover the substantive truth. However, due to the accused's death, the victim has been deprived of the right to engage in fierce legal battles and even the right to speak in court, which is very regrettable.

- Given that the main perpetrator is deceased, how do you think the investigation and punishment of accomplices should proceed?

▲ Lawyer Kim = Criminal complaints aim to prosecute and punish those who committed illegal acts, but since the accused is deceased, such processes are difficult to proceed. Procedurally, there is talk of dismissal of prosecution. This means that criminal punishment cannot be imposed on the person who committed the act, but I believe it is possible to investigate and legally punish those who abetted if their guilt is revealed.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.