Jo Eung-cheon: "Kim Nam-guk's Wealth Increase Through Junk Coins Is Inappropriate"

Jo Eung-cheon, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, pointed out that Kim Nam-guk, a Democratic Party lawmaker at the center of the '6 billion won coin' controversy, engaging in property accumulation through so-called 'junk coins' is an inappropriate act.

On the 9th, Jo said on SBS's 'Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show,' "Regardless of being a public official, investing in stocks or especially coins, and even more so in junk coins, to accumulate wealth is something I have no words for, even if I had ten mouths. It is inappropriate."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

He said, "The investment was in WEMIX Coin, which is not well-known like Bitcoin or Ethereum, but what is called a Kimchi coin, a junk coin," adding, "Isn't this just a game of money for money? You never know when it might become worthless. Yet, you throw in 1 billion won there? What do you trust? You 'all-in' with cash equivalent to the amount you declared in your assets? You must have known something, right? You must have had something. So, the suspicion that you used insider information, undisclosed internal information, has not yet been resolved."

While the ruling party criticizes Kim for 'pretending to be an ordinary citizen,' Kim strongly rebuffed by comparing himself to First Lady Kim Keon-hee. Regarding this, Jo said, "Rather than pretending to be an ordinary citizen, our Democratic Party and other progressive parties have long emphasized relatively superior morality compared to the opposition and used that as an election strategy to gain votes. So, if there is even a slight flaw in that morality, whether it violates the law or not, if it does not align with public sentiment, you have to endure damage at least twice as much as the opposition. That is unavoidable."

Regarding Kim's claim that the '6 billion won coin' suspicion is a work of the 'Han Dong-hoon prosecution,' Jo said, "That should have been said after there was some physical evidence or circumstantial evidence. Just saying it recklessly seems a bit hasty. Of course, the places where this information can be leaked are limited to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), the prosecution, and a few others. And prosecutors are dispatched to the FIU. Even so, there should be more concrete circumstantial evidence for such claims to be persuasive."

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