Coast Guard: "No Investigation Announcement Guidelines for West Sea Killed Official"... Denies Presidential Office Involvement

Korea Coast Guard

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Hyesook] The Korea Coast Guard denied the Democratic Party of Korea's claim that the Yoon Suk-yeol administration's presidential office was involved in reversing its stance on the judgment of defection in the 'West Sea Civil Servant Killing Incident.'

The Korea Coast Guard stated on the 29th that it did not receive any directives from the National Security Office regarding the final investigation results announcement of the West Sea civil servant killing incident on the 16th.

A Coast Guard official said, "Although we explained to the presidential office during the process of withdrawing the appeal against the cancellation of the refusal to disclose information lawsuit filed by the bereaved family, we never received any directives related to the investigation results."

However, the Coast Guard did not provide any explanation regarding suspicions that the Blue House intervened in the announcement of the interim investigation results during the Moon Jae-in administration. It is reported that they consider it inappropriate to comment on this matter while the Board of Audit and Inspection is currently conducting an audit.

The Democratic Party of Korea's Task Force (TF) on the West Sea Civil Servant Killing Incident held a press conference at the National Assembly that morning, stating, "It has been identified that the Coast Guard held multiple discussions with the National Security Office of the presidential office while reversing its stance on the victim's defection judgment."

TF leader Representative Kim Byung-joo explained, "The Coast Guard held a press conference announcing the final stance on June 16. When asked when they started preparing the press release, they said it was from early June," adding, "During that process, they reportedly had several discussions with the National Security Office."

Representative Kim said, "They spent about three weeks preparing the press release," and added, "The fact that opinions went back and forth for three weeks suggests deep involvement by the National Security Office."

He continued, "When I asked the Coast Guard, 'How did the press conference come to be held jointly by the Ministry of National Defense and the Coast Guard?' they replied, 'The National Security Office of the presidential office acted as a bridge and mediator,'" and added, "We currently believe the National Security Office was deeply involved, and the TF will clarify the facts based on reports from the Minister of National Defense and the Coast Guard Chief."

Jung Bong-hoon, Commissioner of the Korea Coast Guard, is making a public apology on the 22nd regarding the investigation of the 'West Sea Shooting of Public Officials' incident that occurred in September 2020. 2022.6.22
[Photo by Korea Coast Guard]

The Coast Guard announced the interim investigation results one week after Lee Dae-jun (47 at the time of death), a Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries official, was shot and killed by North Korean soldiers in the West Sea in September 2020, concluding that he had defected to the North.

However, on the 16th, after one year and nine months, the Coast Guard held a press briefing and reversed the investigation results, stating that they could not find evidence of Lee's intention to defect.

Regarding this, Coast Guard Commissioner Jeong Bong-hoon stated in a public apology on the 22nd, "At the beginning of the incident, we judged it as defection based on the Ministry of National Defense's position that it was defection and information we independently confirmed."

He explained, "In June last year, we requested necessary SI for the investigation from the Ministry of National Defense, but the Ministry did not provide the data, so we were unable to secure evidence to prove the defection-related suspicion," adding, "The intent to defect requires strict proof, and the investigation review committee's consensus was that the information in this case could not be used as 'evidence' under the rules of evidence."

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