Kwak Sangun: "Kim Eojun Shakes Up the Party and Presidential Office Without Taking Responsibility" [Current Affairs Show]

"Kim Eojun's 'false accusation counter-suit' amounts to intimidation of the public"


"Jeong Cheongrae's appearance made it seem as if the party leader was reporting to the channel"


"I absolutely could not support the crime of legal di

■ Broadcast: The Asia Business Daily "Soh Jongsup's Current Affairs Show" (Monday to Friday, 4–5 p.m.)

■ Host: Political Specialist Jongsup Soh ■ Director: PD Ma Yena

■ Guest: Sangun Kwak, National Assembly member of the Democratic Party of Korea (March 18)

※ When quoting this article, please be sure to cite "Soh Jongsup's Current Affairs Show."

Soh Jongsup: Hello everyone, welcome to Soh Jongsup's Current Affairs Show. As announced, we have invited Assemblyman Sangun Kwak of the Democratic Party of Korea for a candid discussion today. He was the first lawmaker from the Democratic Party to raise issues regarding YouTube's political influence. He is also well known as the son-in-law of former President Roh Moo-hyun. Thank you for joining us today, despite your busy schedule, Assemblyman Kwak.

Sangun Kwak: Thank you for having me. I am Sangun Kwak.

Soh Jongsup: How have you been these days?

Sangun Kwak, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, appeared on The Asia Business Daily's "Soh Jongsup's Current Affairs Show" on the 18th and was interviewed by specialist Jongsup Soh. Photo by Huh Younghan

Sangun Kwak: Before becoming a National Assembly member, I didn't really know what a lawmaker actually did in detail. But since taking office, every single day has been extremely busy—much busier than most people would expect. I have to wake up early in the morning, and even after getting up, there are so many things to review, so many people to meet, and countless decisions to make each day. It feels much like being constantly on standby, like a military five-minute alert squad.

Soh Jongsup: Your constituency is Jongno. How do you perceive the public sentiment there lately?

Sangun Kwak: Recently, stock prices have risen significantly, and while it may appear that the national economy is thriving, in reality, most people are left out of the stock market, and the real economy is not actually linked to stock prices. If you walk around the market alleys and shopping streets frequented by ordinary citizens, you can really feel that actual purchasing power isn't high. Right now, there are quite a few vacant storefronts in the heart of Hyehwa-dong, Daehangno.

Soh Jongsup: What is your assessment of President Lee Jaemyung's administration?

Sangun Kwak: First of all, the current high approval rating means that the public perceives the results and achievements of politics as much improved compared to before. It's a matter of relativity—the performance is much better than in the past. But this is still the early stage of the administration. The political situation can change at any time, and even the same political leader can be evaluated differently or have that evaluation reversed depending on the circumstances. I hope President Lee Jaemyung maintains this approval rating for a long time. I believe that politicians, especially those who exercise executive power, should always keep in mind the possibility that 'perhaps this is the peak of my popularity, perhaps these are the best times.' Just as a full moon inevitably wanes after two weeks, so too does political fortune.

Soh Jongsup: Recently, there have been talks about the "New Lee Jaemyung" faction versus the "Moon Again" faction and the so-called "Myung-Qing confrontation." What are your thoughts on this?

The term 'Myung-Qing confrontation' is designed to divide and provoke conflict

Sangun Kwak: It's not an easy topic to address. It's natural that political views can't always align.I actually see differences in opinion as a positive thing.In fact, it's unnatural and wrong for only one viewpoint to exist. To use an analogy: if you visit a flower garden and see only one kind of flower, would you really see it as a garden? If there is no diversity of flowers, it does not appear as a flower garden at all.

The current problem is that new names are being created, as if these new factions must duel against each other. The term "New Lee Jaemyung" implies that the "Old Lee Jaemyung" group is outdated and should be ousted, while "Moon Again" seems to echo the ruling party's "Yoon Again," painting them as either old-fashioned or even a dangerous political faction. The most provocative term is "Myung-Qing confrontation," which suggests a transition from the Ming dynasty to the Qing dynasty and divides people into groups symbolized by "Myung" and "Qing," thereby encouraging division and conflict. Certain political YouTubers and those who have attacked others under the banner of these factions give such names to maintain or reinforce these phenomena.

During the 2024 general election, Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, and candidate Kwak Sang-eon are eating jokbal at Changsin Market in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kim Hyunmin

Soh Jongsup: So, basically, is it your stance that President Lee Jaemyung is doing well and should be actively supported?

Sangun Kwak: I am a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, and our party is the ruling party that produced the president.While the roles of the legislative and executive branches are distinct, for the party that produced the president to succeed, the president must do well, and that, in turn, brings comfort to the people. When the president fails, it is impossible for the public to be at ease. However, support can mean many things. Unconditional praise is neither good for the president nor for the public, and I am aware of that.So I do not intend to act in that way.

Soh Jongsup: We can't overlook the fact that you are the "son-in-law of Roh Moo-hyun." What are your thoughts on the essence of Roh Moo-hyun's politics, and the fact that many politicians these days often reference him?

‘Roh Moo-hyun’ is both an honor and a burden

Sangun Kwak: The name "Roh Moo-hyun" is both an honor and a burden to me.From my perspective, President Roh was a good politician.He always pursued upright, just, and righteous politics. Whenever interests and values clashed, he always chose values. If there was a conflict of interests, he would give up his own for the benefit of the community, the party, or even the nation. That was always his effort. He was very different from today’s politicians. In that respect, it is an honor for me to have been close to him. The burden comes from having experienced both ups and downs together with him, and from the sense of responsibility that I must not tarnish the politics he pursued.I try to keep the name attached to me in mind and do my utmost.

Soh Jongsup: Last September, you pointed out the problem of so-called "YouTube power," which caused quite a stir at the time, and recently, it seems that consensus on this point has grown.

Sangun Kwak: I have been aware of the problem of YouTube's political influence for a long time, and at some point, I decided I needed to either point it out or resolve it. I actually brought it up last September. Any normal politician who pursues values cannot help but notice this issue.It began to stand out during the 2020 National Assembly elections, when, in every election, each camp would have its own YouTube channels.Appearing on these major channels became an election campaign in itself.

The opportunity to appear on such a channel itself became a mark of political capability, and appearing on these channels became a way of letting the public know your face, your political insight, and your actions and decisions. This was recognized as political activity by the public. It was neither party politics nor parliamentary politics. In fact, I saw these attempts to control or orchestrate elections as illegal political acts. That's why I raised the issue last September.

After I became a candidate, I appeared on these channels a couple of times, but never to become a candidate

These YouTube channels have been so politically arrogant and have deceived the public to such an extent that, if you don't appear on their channel, you are regarded as an insignificant politician who does nothing.One of the most memorable expressions I heard at the time was "suddenly appearing out of nowhere." That is, how dare someone like you criticize me?If YouTube power singles out a particular politician, it can amplify them with a megaphone or destroy them, depending on its agenda. As a result, politics ceases to function as politics unless you appear on these YouTube channels. To become a party candidate, you must appear on those channels.If you don't, you are seen as someone who does nothing, without insight or competence, and thus cannot become a candidate.

One criticism I received was, "Didn't you appear on those channels yourself?" Yes, I did appear.To be clear, I appeared a couple of times after I had already been confirmed as a candidate, along with all the other Democratic Party candidates. There are many ways in which YouTube politics intervenes in real politics—sometimes by preemptively setting the political agenda and driving it as they wish. But in terms of real election intervention, it is about creating candidates. I have never appeared on those channels in order to become a candidate.

Sangun Kwak, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, said regarding the party's decision to only prosecute the cast members and exclude Mr. Kim Eojun, "The public will judge whether this is the proper action." Photo by Hoyoung Han

Soh Jongsup: Regarding the so-called "nomination cancellation deal" rumor, the party said it would prosecute the former MBC reporter, but took no action against Mr. Kim Eojun. What are your thoughts on this?

Sangun Kwak: The story came from the channel run, hosted, and produced by Mr. Kim Eojun, but our Democratic Party prosecuted everyone except for Kim Eojun.There is a symbolic meaning to this. Decisions should be based on facts, not on personal connections or fear of influence or the desire to use that influence.So far, only Mr. Kim's explanation has been given, but nothing has been revealed about what role he played or how much he was involved. The process should be based on what is revealed, and the purpose of prosecution is to clarify the facts, but only the least influential cast member was prosecuted.I don't need to state the obvious—the public will judge whether this was the proper action.

Soh Jongsup: So you are questioning whether it was the right action.

Sangun Kwak: The channel's name is "News Factory," isn't it?The term "news" means media. The media is supposed to verify facts and inform the public of those facts, and the word "factory" implies a typical production process and mass output.For years, that's how they've operated, so I don't understand why only in this case did they not follow the process of producing news. Looking at this, it seems that the channel used the name of the press and "news" just to wield media power. They enjoyed influence without taking responsibility.

Soh Jongsup: Mr. Kim Eojun has strongly claimed, "I am not responsible. If accused, I will sue for false accusation," and Representative Jeong Cheongrae appeared to explain the bills on the Public Investigation Office and the Central Investigation Office. Within the Democratic Party, there seem to be various responses. What is your take on this?

The bigger problem is exercising influence without taking responsibility

Sangun Kwak: When I first criticized YouTube's political power, a fellow lawmaker told me, "What's wrong with appearing on such an influential channel to inform the public about political trends?" Did I say it was wrong? What I said is that that's not the only way to do politics, and that it's wrong for a public political party to be subordinate to a specific political channel. The ruling party is supposed to conduct politics for its members and report to the public. But now, the party leader reports the party’s news and results to a single political channel. How do you think the public sees that?

They may misunderstand and think, "Oh, the Democratic Party is just a subordinate organization of that political channel." Many times, the issues raised by that channel have become political agendas, so this perception may become even stronger among the public. I believe this is a serious problem.This time, the content aired on Mr. Kim Eojun's channel was significant enough to shake the administration.It was about using presidential authority to resolve a personal legal issue, but after making such claims, now he says he knows nothing. He is threatening the public by saying that anyone who accuses him will be punished for making a false accusation. One political channel has shaken not only the whole Democratic Party but also the presidential office, yet refuses to take any responsibility. That is the bigger problem.

Soh Jongsup: So you don't believe it was appropriate for Representative Jeong Cheongrae to appear on that channel either.

Sangun Kwak: That's right. It wasn't just the party leader who appeared on Mr. Kim Eojun's News Factory channel—so did the prime minister, and even former presidents. How does this look to the public? It appears as though these figures are reporting their political achievements to a particular YouTube personality. I was particularly shocked last year when I saw a former president and others acting like brothers on that channel. I believe that is not proper political etiquette towards the public.

Soh Jongsup: Some say that by the second half of next year, there will again be candidates "bowing their heads" just to appear on these channels for nomination purposes.

Sangun Kwak: The power of political YouTube channels now far exceeds that of established media.The media exists because of its social influence, but the difference in influence is so great that politicians can't ignore the political power of these YouTubers.The thing politicians fear most is losing an election, because if you lose, there is basically nothing you can do. Political YouTubers exploit this vulnerability among politicians. Meanwhile, it's extremely difficult for politicians to interact directly with the public and demonstrate results, but if you dominate just a few key political YouTube channels, you can do politics easily. If you appear on those channels, you are seen as a competent or famous politician and can even attract donations. If you don't appear, you are seen as someone who does nothing, lacking fame and ability, and are thus excluded—which is exploited by these channels.By taking advantage of this, these YouTube channels and their networks tie up real politicians and make many deals throughout the election process. I believe this must be eradicated.

Soh Jongsup: The Democratic Party pushed the "crime of judicial distortion" as a party platform, but you alone opposed it. Why did you oppose it so strongly?

Sangun Kwak: There are essential problems, operational problems, and questions of my own attitude as a politician. The idea of a "crime of judicial distortion" has been discussed for a long time. I'd heard the term, but I first saw the actual bill just two days before the vote.It's the same for all lawmakers. I practiced as a lawyer for more than 20 years and lived quite intensively. After reading the bill, I concluded that it must not be passed.

Soh Jongsup: What was the decisive reason?

Sangun Kwak: Why would I oppose punishing judges or prosecutors who abuse the law? I have no objection to punishing those who forge evidence or alter its content to influence verdicts or investigations. But in this bill, the interpretation and application of the law, and the assessment of evidence, were made into elements of a crime.This means that judicial power itself becomes the subject of investigation.

So, a judge could be prosecuted just for handing down a verdict. In this bill, prosecutors who investigate, prosecutors who file charges, judges, and even Constitutional Court justices could be investigated for this crime.Which means that even Constitutional Court justices would fall under the control of investigative agencies. And those agencies would become the final arbiters of legal interpretation. This, I believe, would destroy the separation of powers. I spoke up twice at party meetings, and even wrote a letter for all lawmakers to read.

Despite this, it was decided as the party line. I could clearly see the consequences if this bill passed, so I could not support it. That's why I actually urged others to vote against it. But in the end, I was the only one to cast an opposing vote.

If implemented, the crime of judicial distortion would destroy separation of powers

Soh Jongsup: I suspect some of your fellow lawmakers agreed with you.

Sangun Kwak: Yes, there were a few who told me so. It would have been more realistic and politically advantageous for me to simply go along with the party line,but I said I could not support it.

Soh Jongsup: What is your view on the issue of supplementary investigation rights?

Sangun Kwak: There are many discussions about supplementary investigation rights, and sometimes it is framed as a factional conflict within the Democratic Party, between those who support the president and those who do not.But the fact that it even appears to be a conflict is problematic in itself.The law applies to every aspect of people's lives, and especially, the right to investigate relates to the existence of crime victims and perpetrators. The real focus should be on whether exercising investigative authority reduces harm for victims and enables proper punishment of criminals. But now, if someone supports a position, it's considered just, and if you oppose it, it's seen as unjust.

Some people even invoke President Roh Moo-hyun's death to justify their arguments.The issue of investigative authority reform is not the same as President Roh's death.I believe those who equate the two are abusing his passing for their own political interests. That's all I will say on that.

Soh Jongsup: Let's wrap up here.Thank you for your insights today, Assemblyman Kwak.

Sangun Kwak: Thank you.

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