Attorney Kim Young-nam, who led the investigation into the Ssangbangwool North Korea remittance case, reportedly spoke with Attorney Seo Min-seok, who had claimed to have received a sentence bargaining proposal during the investigation. Seo was the defense lawyer for Lee Hwa-young, the former Vice Governor of Gyeonggi Province and a key figure in the North Korea remittance case.
The propriety of Kim’s phone call to Seo became a subject of controversy, leading to a public dispute between Kim, Lee, and Seo over the truth of the matter.
The National Assembly’s ‘Special Committee for Investigating Allegations of Political Prosecution by the Yoon Suk Yeol Administration’ convened a hearing on Tuesday at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul.
The hearing was attended by Kim, Lee, Seo, and Lee Jeong-hyun, the current Chief Prosecutor of Suwon High Prosecutors’ Office.
Seo had previously released recorded conversations with Prosecutor Park Sang-yong, who was under Kim’s command during the investigation, accusing Park of attempting to manipulate and coerce testimony.
While suspicions grew about the investigating prosecutor discussing a direct plea bargain with the defense attorney, Park maintained that Seo had initially proposed the deal, asserting his own innocence.
During the hearing, Seo Young-kyo, the chair of the Special Committee, questioned Kim about his communication with Seo.
Kim explained that at the time, Lee insisted that Seo should be present during his interrogation by the prosecution. However, for some reason, Seo was very reluctant to participate.
Kim continued that from an investigative standpoint, it had to either proceed without a lawyer or wait for one to participate. Unable to keep waiting, it recalls calling Seo to request his presence during the investigation.
Regarding this matter, Lee Jeong-hyun commented that while it may depend on the circumstances, it doesn’t appear appropriate.
Lee also requested an opportunity to speak and refuted Kim’s claims.
Lee stated that Kim’s assertions are false. Seo never once participated in my testimony during the prosecution’s investigation. The terms of our attorney-client agreement specified that Seo would be involved in the trial.
This implies that as the designated trial attorney, Seo had no reason to request participation in the investigation.
Seo corroborated this, saying that it never attended any of the prosecution’s investigations at that time.
In contrast, Kim maintained that it remembers that after the previous attorney, Seol Ju-wan, resigned, either Seo or an associate attorney from his firm participated in the investigation.