[Reporter’s Notebook] Kim Keonhee Special Prosecutor’s Wavering ‘Subjects of Investigation’

Ignoring Testimony on Unification Church's Support for Democratic Party
Controversy Over Selective Investigation by Special Prosecutor Persists

The issue of determining who should be subject to investigation and punishment is an inevitable challenge faced by all investigative agencies. For this reason, when deciding on investigation targets, agencies exercise extreme caution to ensure objectivity and avoid any potential misunderstandings. This is also why prosecutors and police refrain from openly investigating politicians and corporate corruption during election periods-to avoid becoming embroiled in allegations of bias.

However, it appears that the special prosecutor team investigating Kim Keonhee may have overlooked the proverb, "Do not even adjust your hat strings under a plum tree." By launching an investigation into allegations that the Unification Church provided money to politicians, the special prosecutor team has clearly ignited controversy over "selective investigation." It was a clear mistake to take lightly the testimony of a key suspect from the Unification Church.

From the perspective of those who have faced heavy public criticism, it is understandable that they would strongly argue the special prosecutor team conducted a biased investigation. As criminal facts such as receiving money from the Unification Church, lobbying for pending business projects, and receiving support from the church during the presidential and party leadership elections were made public, there were fierce calls for the dissolution of the political party involved, and its approval ratings plummeted. This is not merely a repetition of the usual complaint, "Why am I the only one being punished?"

During last summer, when the special prosecutor team was conducting a large-scale investigation into an alleged "secret deal" between the Yoon Suk-yeol administration and the Unification Church, they reportedly obtained testimony that the Democratic Party was also among the recipients of political funds distributed by the church. Yet, they did not launch an investigation. The special prosecutor team's explanation that "the testimony, in terms of people, evidence, and timing, clearly does not fall under the scope of the special prosecutor law and will be handed over to another investigative agency" is hardly satisfactory.

From the special prosecutor team's point of view, there may be some sense of unfairness. It is conceivable that, since there was no concrete evidence at hand and the suspect only gave vague testimony such as "I think it happened," the team did not attach much significance to the statement.

However, the special prosecutor team has previously handled several cases that could hardly be considered within the scope of the special prosecutor's mandate. In this context, the team should have made efforts to verify the authenticity of the testimony. The explanation that a case number was assigned and the matter was recorded as a case does not align with the principle of fairness applied to other cases handled by the team.

The scope of investigation under the Kim Keonhee special prosecutor law is clearly defined as "all related criminal acts identified during the investigation process." Although the special prosecutor team drew a clear line, stating that allegations of the Unification Church supporting the Democratic Party were unequivocally not subject to investigation, controversy over selective investigation is unlikely to subside easily.

The fact remains that, even after assigning a case number and formalizing the matter as a case, no investigation was conducted. Will these allegations that have surfaced simply be buried? The special prosecutor team's investigation period ends on the 28th of this month.

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