Park Jun-young "Government and Ruling Party's Response to 'Disclosure of Accused Facts' is Contradictory"

Lawyer Park Jun-young [Photo by Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] Lawyer Park Junyoung criticized the ruling party, the Ministry of Justice, and the Blue House for their contradictory reactions to the ‘publication of suspect facts,’ which vary depending on political advantages and disadvantages. He also argued that it is undesirable to merely control the investigation information of power-related cases while leaving the structure of public opinion formation in our society?where investigation and trial results are cited and interpreted according to factional logic and various vested interests?unchanged.

On the 7th, Lawyer Park posted on his Facebook under the title ‘The Pros and Cons of Emphasizing Principles,’ stating, “During the comprehensive cases of the prosecution’s past affairs investigation, in which I directly participated, there was ‘publication of suspect facts.’ Even while the investigation was ongoing, there was quite a bit of irresponsible dissemination related to this, and it was reported in the form of ‘exclusive’ articles.” He added, “However, at that time, the ruling party, the Ministry of Justice, and the Blue House did not express any regret to the investigation team regarding this. This was because the reports were favorable to this administration.”

He continued, “During the investigation of past judicial corruption, the investigation status was reported almost live on the media, but regarding the publication of suspect facts, the ruling party, the Ministry of Justice, and the Blue House remained silent for the same reason.” He pointed out, “The strong backlash from those who were silent during the investigation of former Minister Cho Kuk reflects a ‘contradiction’ influenced by political stance and factional logic.”

He also mentioned the ‘former Vice Minister of Justice Kim Hak-ui case,’ the recent ‘LH case,’ and the ‘Gumi, Gyeongbuk 3-year-old girl case.’ Lawyer Park evaluated, “(These cases) are reported almost in real-time as the investigation progresses,” and “The principle of prohibiting the publication of suspect facts is applied ‘without principles,’ sometimes with silence and sometimes with emphasis, depending on various interests.” He emphasized that when the possibility of criticism is high, emphasizing this principle faces backlash, so its effectiveness and side effects must be carefully examined.

He also stressed that while live broadcasting of power-related investigations is problematic, measures are needed for investigations conducted in the dark. “This leads to investigations that watch the power’s mood, or to put it positively, investigations that wait until the power weakens to proceed. The emergency departure of former Vice Minister Kim and the past affairs investigation happened two years ago,” he explained.

Furthermore, he said, “The fact that many cases effectively undergo public trials before the actual trial due to the publication of suspect facts, often leading to tragic outcomes, indicates the direction of reform and the ideals we ultimately should pursue.” He added, “The practical implementation of ideal reforms must proceed with universal consensus, that is, within reality, to reduce side effects.”

He concluded, “I hope the Minister of Justice will also consider the contradictions in emphasizing principles and the practical implementation of reforms.”

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