Prosecutors Complete Summons Investigation of Lee Jae-myung, Will They Request an Arrest Warrant?

Considering Bribery Amount Exceeding 10 Billion Won, Warrant Issue
If Warrant Is Dismissed, Daejangdong Investigation Also Affected

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] As the prosecution investigating the 'Seongnam FC sponsorship fund' allegations has completed summoning and questioning Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, attention is focused on the prosecution's choice regarding Lee's detention.

Given the charges the prosecution intends to apply to Lee, it would naturally be a matter warranting a detention warrant request. However, considering the practical difficulty of obtaining the National Assembly's consent for arrest and the potential backlash if the detention warrant is rejected by the court, the prosecution is understandably hesitant to secure Lee's custody outright.

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is appearing at the Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province on the 10th to undergo investigation related to the 'Seongnam FC Sponsorship Fund Allegation' case. Photo by Joint Press Corps

On the 11th, conflicting views emerged within the legal community regarding the possibility of the prosecution requesting a detention warrant for Lee.

Attorney A, a former prosecutor, said, "According to reports, Doosan Construction, which allegedly received preferential treatment for changing land use, donated 5.5 billion KRW, and the total sponsorship amount reaches 17 billion KRW. Of course, it is uncertain at this stage whether the entire amount will be recognized in court as money linked to illicit solicitations, but if the prosecution plans to structure the indictment in that way, it would be strange not to request a detention warrant."

The third-party bribery charge the prosecution intends to apply to Lee carries a statutory penalty of "imprisonment for up to five years or disqualification for up to ten years" under the Criminal Act. However, if the bribe amount given to a third party exceeds 100 million KRW, the statutory penalty is elevated to "life imprisonment or imprisonment for ten years or more" under Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes. Considering past practical precedents related to bribery charges, many view it as a matter that naturally warrants a detention warrant request.

A current prosecutor said, "Even if the prosecution requests a detention warrant, given the current atmosphere in the Democratic Party, the likelihood of the National Assembly passing the consent for arrest is almost none. The prosecution indicted other suspects related to this case naming Lee as an accomplice and summoned him for questioning. It would look odd not to request a detention warrant while indicting him for bribery exceeding 10 billion KRW."

Since even if a detention warrant is requested, it is highly likely to be blocked in the National Assembly before the warrant review, the prosecution might strategically prefer to request the warrant according to principle, forcing Lee or the Democratic Party to endure criticism of a 'shielding National Assembly.' This could have no strategic disadvantage considering the impact on ongoing investigations into Lee, including the Daejang-dong case.

On the other hand, some oppose the idea, questioning whether the prosecution would recklessly request a detention warrant given Lee's status as the leader of the main opposition party and the risks if the warrant is rejected.

One attorney said, "Considering that Lee and the Democratic Party are strongly resisting, calling it 'political prosecution targeting' and 'opposition suppression,' the prosecution might opt to indict without detention and await the court's guilty verdict, taking into account the repercussions a detention warrant request could cause."

Another attorney added, "If the National Assembly passes the consent for arrest and the court holds a warrant review but rejects the warrant, it could be a fatal blow not only to this investigation but also to other investigations against Lee, such as the Daejang-dong case. Even if the consent is rejected, the mere fact that a detention warrant was requested against the opposition leader could spark various controversies, placing a heavy burden on the prosecution."

In fact, if the consent for arrest for Lee is passed and the warrant review is held, and the court rejects the detention warrant citing reasons such as 'there is room for dispute regarding the establishment of the crime' or 'insufficient evidence of the crime,' the prosecution would face the worst-case scenario.

There is also speculation that the prosecution has already reached a tentative conclusion on Lee's detention during the investigation process.

Attorney B, a former prosecutor, said, "Although the Seongnam branch is conducting the investigation, decisions regarding the detention of a high-profile figure like Lee are not matters for the branch level. While the investigation team's opinion is important, the intentions of Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok, Minister Han Dong-hoon, and possibly even President Yoon Seok-youl could be considered."

He continued, "Since this is a matter requiring political judgment, they have likely been monitoring public opinion trends continuously. At the stage where investigations into the Daejang-dong and Seongnam FC cases have progressed to some extent, it is possible that a tentative conclusion regarding Lee's detention has been reached."

Meanwhile, Lee is under investigation by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office for the Daejang-dong and Wirye development preferential treatment cases, and by the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office for the Ssangbangwool Group's lawyer fee payment case. Notably, in the Daejang-dong case, key aides such as former Chief of Staff to the party leader Jeong Jin-sang and Deputy Director of the Democratic Research Institute Kim Yong have already been indicted and detained, leaving only Lee's summons and questioning pending.

Lee's detention issue is also linked to these remaining investigations.

It is unclear how much evidence the prosecution has secured to prove Lee's charges related to the Daejang-dong case, but no circumstances have yet emerged showing Lee directly received illicit money from the Daejang-dong group like former Chief Jeong or Deputy Director Kim.

Therefore, if there is a lack of decisive evidence supporting Lee's collusion with former Chief Jeong and others, the Seongnam FC case, which is relatively straightforward and has more meaningful evidence, might be less burdensome for the prosecution to request a detention warrant compared to the Daejang-dong case.

The day before, Lee refused a tea-time proposal from Lee Chang-soo, head of the Seongnam branch, and after being questioned, left the prosecution office around 10:42 p.m., approximately 12 hours after his arrival.

Regarding media reports that Lee refused to testify, Ahn Ho-young, chief spokesperson for the Democratic Party, stated, "This is not true," adding, "He is cooperating with the investigation based on a written statement submitted to the prosecution." However, it is known that Lee prepared and submitted a written statement rebutting the prosecution's application of the third-party bribery charge and mostly responded to questions by referring to this statement.

After the investigation, Lee said, "Even looking at the materials presented by the prosecution today, there was nothing convincing to me." Given Lee's lack of specific answers to the prosecution's prepared questions, it appears the prosecution decided there was no need to expose key evidence they possess.

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