A Response to JTBC, Part II: The Truth about the Impeachment of South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye and the Rule of Law
2020-5-20, Tara O
This is the second part of the response to JTBC, which brought up three important issues in its reporting:
- Election fraud in South Korea
- Truth about the impeachment of South Korea’s president Park Geun-hye
- “South Korean President Moon is a spy”
Today’s topic is as below.
The Truth about the impeachment of South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye
Until the coronavirus stopped mass gatherings, a large group of South Koreans gathered weekly for over three years to protest president Park Geun-hye’s (박근혜) impeachment and imprisonment and to demand her freedom. Many in the West were led to believe that the impeachment of South Korea’s president Park Geun-hye was due to “corruption and bribery.” Ask South Koreans, however, and they will say it was “gookjeong nongdan”—the dictionary states “monopoly of state affairs,” but people understood it to mean that Park Guen-hye’s friend Choi Seo-won (aka Choi Soon-sil) was running the country, not President Park. The proof? A “tablet PC,” so the story goes.
JTBC’s infamous “tablet PC” story aired multiple times in October 2016, claiming that a certain tablet belonged to Choi Seo-won, that Choi “walked around with the tablet editing speeches and received meeting notes.” Thus, this proves, according to the narrative, that Choi runs the country. As absurd and unfounded as the claim is, the reality is that this conjecture embarrassed and angered the public, and they joined very well-organized candlelight demonstrations–demonstrations created by the same groups, including the militant Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, that also organized anti-U.S. beef demonstrations in 2008, among others.
There are more than a few now who regret that they joined the candlelight demonstrations, as they watch the increasing unemployment, falling exports, declining economic growth, and growing national debt, which were already occurring under the Moon administration before the coronavirus pandemic. They also have become disillusioned by the discoveries of massive corruption, such as the cases against Moon Jae-in’s Justice Minister Cho Kuk and the real estate speculation of the First Lady Kim Jung-sook’s school cohort Sohn Hye-won, a marketing expert-turned-lawmaker, who gave the ruling party the adjective “Deobureo” (“with” or “together”) in front of “Minjoo” (Democratic/Democracy) Party.
Journalists Jailed
For challenging JTBC’s tablet story, JTBC sued 4 journalists, 2 of whom were sent to jail for “libel.” Now out on bail after a year in prison, journalist Byun Hee-jai had discovered that the tablet belonged not to Choi, but to Kim Han-soo, the very person who pointed his finger at Choi, which is a false testimony and perjury by Kim Han-soo. Choi has maintained that the tablet is not hers, and questioned the ever-changing claims by JTBC about where it obtained the tablet; JTBC expressed that it discovered the tablet in a trash can in Germany, then later from a trash can in Choi’s basement, and then later from a desk drawer in an office.
Although the tablet was useful in instigating public discontent, the court did not admit the tablet as evidence for impeachment, because there was no legal basis for it to be admitted as evidence, yet many candlelight goers are unaware that this was the case.
National Assembly votes to impeach in only 6 days
For a variety of political reasons, the National Assembly voted to impeach Park in only six days, with no hearings and no investigations. The National Assembly introduced the impeachment proposal on December 3, 2016 and voted on it on December 6, 2016. The impeachment bill contained a long list of charges, including “violating the freedom to choose one’s employment,” which makes one question how it is related to “gukjeong nongdan. “Gukjeong nongdan” is not even listed as a crime in any written South Korean legal code. (1) Yet the National Assembly and the prosecution justified the impeachment as arising from “gukjeong nongdan,” and the news stories as “evidence.” Of the 21 attachments to the impeachment bill, none were “evidence.” The attachments were 15 newspaper articles and charges against other people. For the list of new articles, see here.
Without any hearings or investigations, the National Assembly impeachment bill charged that Park violated the following, which is strikingly extensive: (2)
- Citizen’s sovereignty and representative democracy
- The Principle of Rule of Law
- The President’s responsibility to defend and obey the Constitution
- Career civil service system
- The Power to appoint and dismiss given to the president
- The Principle of equality
- The Guarantee of private property
- The Freedom to choose one’s employment
- The State’s responsibility to guarantee basic human rights
- The Market economy order based on economic freedom and private autonomy of individuals and corporations
- Freedom of speech
- “Etc.”
There was “etc” just in case the list was not extensive enough, but the vague “etc” is not an impeachable offense. This is yet another example of how shoddy and rushed the impeachment resolution was. There is still no proof that Park violated these. (3)
The National Assembly also charged Park with “conducting a variety of crimes,” violating legal codes as follows: “Additional Punishment Law on Specific Crimes (Bribery) [특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 (뇌물)죄], Interference with the Exercise of the Right to investigate Abuse of Authority (직권남용권리행사방해죄), Compel (강요죄), Leaking of Official Secrets (공무상비밀누설죄), etc.” (4) Again, the vague term “etc.” is used, in addition to several criminal codes. A sitting president cannot be impeached for any of these criminal charges; the constitution section 84 states “The President shall not be subject to criminal prosecution while in office, except in cases of insurrection and treason.”
Many of these charges related to the idea that Choi interfered in state affairs (gukjeong nongdan), which is why the tablet is so crucial. If the tablet did not belong to Choi, essentially there is no “proof” of Choi “interfering in state affairs,” yet the tablet was never admitted to the court as “evidence,” because it could not legally fullfil that role. Even if Choi did provide advice, how is it an impeachable offense? The president should be able to seek counsel from others.
Another impeachment charge dealt with the Sewol Ferry sinking, blaming Park for the deaths. JTBC and other mass media played a major role in creating a damaging image of Park through inaccurate reporting and coverage of rumors about the “missing 7 hours,” which also angered the public, and added fuel to the candlelight impeachment demonstrations.
Each charge in the articles of impeachment should have been drafted as an individual charge in the document and a vote should have been taken on whether the president committed each charge in the articles of impeachment. Instead all of these charges were lumped into a single vote, making it impossible to consider the merits of each charge.
Any efforts to “prove” all these charges would take years to investigate. The lawmakers, many of whom did not even read the impeachment proposal, voted to impeach a sitting president in only six days after introducing such a proposal. There still has been no proof that Park Geun-hye violated any laws or committed any of the crimes she was charged with. With no verification of facts, impeachment based only on suspicions is against the constitution.
Separation of the Legislative branch and the Judiciary branch roles?
The National Assembly and the Constitutional Court have separate roles; the National Assembly approves (or disapproves) the articles in the impeachment resolution by majority vote; the Constitutional Court considers the merits of the impeachment resolution in a trial, then votes to accept or reject the impeachment.
Instead of rejecting the impeachment bill, the Constitutional Court helped the National Assembly Judiciary Committee rewrite it. On December 22, 2016, the Constitutional Court Judge Kang Il-won (강일원) advised the National Assembly Impeachment Committee to rewrite the impeachment resolution by organizing the impeachment articles to 5 broader categories, and even spelled out the 5 articles for the Committee, and later, received from the Committee a different version of the resolution from the version that had been voted upon. (5) On January 5, 2017, Judge Kang again advised the National Assembly Impeachment Committee to delete the 5th article of impeachment, “violating various criminal laws, including receiving bribery.” (6) As stated earlier, the constitution does not allow a president to be subject to criminal prosecution while in office, unless the charges are for insurrection and treason.
Thus, on February 1, 2017, the National Assembly Impeachment Committee submitted a separate document called “Embodiment of Type of Reasons for Impeachment.” (7) Additional reasons for impeachment were added later. Thus the impeachment resolution was no longer the one that was voted on by the National Assembly, but a different document produced as a result of collaboration between the legislative branch and the judiciary branch. The Constitutional Court ruled on the impeachment based on the Embodiment of Type of Reasons for Impeachment document, and not on the original Impeachment bill, which contains more articles that were not impeachable under the constitution, and did not contain some of the new items inserted in the Embodiment document. The fundamentally revised Embodiment document had never been voted upon by the National Assembly.
This ad-hoc process, no hearing, no direct investigations, no evidence, and the fact that the Constitutional Court voted 8-0 under such dubious circumstances is the abandonment of rule of law by the very people entrusted with the special responsibility to uphold and protect it, and a great crime against the citizens of the Republic of Korea. If the law can be upended at will over the passions of the people, then it can be said that there is no law at all, and South Korea has devolved into mob rule.
Corruption and bribery charges, guilt by association, “silent” request
As for the bribery and corruption charges often mentioned in the western press–they were brought up in criminal cases after Park’s impeachment. There were three separate trials of 20 charges–one trial covered 18 charges while the other two trials covered one charge each. Among the 18 charges of the trial that were covered more extensively by the press, the most serious and controversial charge is bribery, although there is no evidence that Park received any money. There are myriads of issues, but the most prominent is the case regarding Samsung.
Samsung sponsored Choi’s daughter, Chung Yoo-ra (정유라), a 2014 Asian Olympics gold-medal winner equestrian, and other equestrians, to practice their sport for international competition by providing access to three horses. This type of private sector sponsorship of the nation’s top athletes, which is often practiced in many countries besides South Korea, was deemed a “bribe.”
The prosecutors and the judges decided that Samsung providing access to horses to equestrian Chung Yoo-ra was a bribe, that Choi Seo-won, as Chung’s mother, was guilty by association, and that Park Guen-hye and Choi conspired, and thus were guilty. This claim of a complex arrangement between unrelated parties is incredibly difficult to explain, let alone investigate or even prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to try to strengthen the argument of association, the judge deemed that Park was a “common economic community” with Choi. Choi strongly opposed, saying, “the idea of a common economic community cannot occur in the Republic of Korea, unless it is a socialist state.” Additionally, one thinks of North Korea or China when one hears “guilt by association,” not South Korea, yet that is what happened in South Korea.
The judge also determined there was a “silent request” (묵시적 청탁) by Samsung’s Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong to Park in helping Lee inherit Samsung. It is unclear how Park could help who becomes the head of a private entity, but even more incredulous is how they determined there was a request when they had no discussions about it. There was no evidence of any request, but the judge ruled that Park was guilty by conjuring up a new type of justification–a “silent request.” To observers it appears as if the court already decided Park was guilty, and it was just a matter of coming up with terminology to justify it.
Companies sponsoring Olympic athletes
Other companies have provided financial support for other athletes in Korea, not only under the Park Geun-hye administration, but also under the Moon Jae-in administration. To prepare for the Winter Olympics in PyeongChang, private companies, such as LG Electronics, Hyundai, Korean Air, KB Financial, SK Telecom, and POSCO, spent $800 million to $1 billion to sponsor the athletes, ₩ 400 billion (~$370 million) during the Park Geun-hye administration and at least ₩400 billion more during the Moon Jae-in administration.
Other companies also contributed— KB Financial Group for short track and bobsleigh, Lotte, CJ Jeil Jaedang, and Shinhan Bank sponsored skiing, ski jumping, snowboarding, and alpine skiing, and Halla, LG Electronics and KB Financial sponsored ice hockey. The CEOs of these companies, however, tried to stay out of sight during the Olympics after they saw what happened to Samsung’s Lee Jae-yong, who was charged with providing a “bribe” (the horses for the athletes) and jailed even prior to the trial. Overall, ₩14 trillion ($12.9 billion) was spent to get ready for the PyeongChang Olympics.
If a company sponsoring national athletes is considered a “bribe,” then one must conclude that President Moon Jae-in is also receiving bribes.
Sentencing
During the initial trial, the prosecutor wanted a 30 year jail sentence. Seoul Central District Court Judge Kim Se-yoon (김세윤) judged that Samsung’s provision of three horses owned by Samsung and associated costs (insurance, fee) worth ₩7.29 million ($6.4 million) to equestrian Chung Yu-ra was a bribe, and interpreted that Park “received” the bribe. The judge deemed that the total amount of “bribery” received or requested was ₩23.2 billion ($18 million). As mentioned earlier, she did not receive any money, and there is no evidence that proves bribery occurred. On April 6, 2018, Judge Kim sentenced Park to 24 years in jail and fined her ₩1.8 billion ($16.2 million), stating “she does not show remorse.” In fact, she stopped attending the trials after October 2017, after she realized the court was rigged.
The prosecutor appealed the case and at the appeals court, the “bribery amount from Samsung” increased to $8.68 billion ($7.8 million). The judge increased Park’s sentence to 25 years and the fine to ₩2 billion ($180 million). The Supreme court returned the case to the Seoul High Court, instructing it to split the case. She also received additional jail sentences of 8 years from other cases, for a total of 33 years of prison sentences.
In South Korea, there is a limit to how long one can stay imprisoned during a trial waiting for the judge’s final decision, which includes appeals. Initially, Park, who was imprisoned for the first case, was expected to be released from prison on April 16, 2019, since she met the legal maximum duration requirement and the bribery case is still not finalized (in appeals). She was, however, not released.
Compare that with Cho Kuk’s (조국) wife, Jeong Kyung-sim (정경심), who had been jailed for the massive corruption scandal, including investing a large portion of their assets, $1.4 million, in a private equity fund, funded by the Chinese government, that led to huge public protests in October 2019. She was caught on camera removing her computer from her office, for which she was also charged with destruction of evidence. Despite her acts and the prosecutor’s request to extend her imprisonment, the Seoul Central District Court judges Im Jeong-yeob (임정엽), Kwon Seong-soo (권성수) and Kim Seon-hee (김선희) released her on May 10, 2020 after six months in jail, stating it is impossible for her to try to flee. This unevenness in the enforcement of laws continues to make a mockery of justice and rule of law in South Korea.
On November 21, 2018, the Seoul High Court judge Kim Ingyueom (김인겸) handed Park Geun-hye a final sentencing of 2 years imprisonment for party nomination interference (the 3rd case). Thus Park has remained in jail for over three years. She still has two more cases under trial. The appeals, initiated by the prosecutors since Park has been boycotting the trials, went to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court returned it to the lower court, instructing it to separate the charges.
On May 20, 2020, the prosecutors demanded a 35 year prison sentence for Park at the Seoul High Court, presided by the judges Oh Seok-jun (오석준), Lee Jeong-hwan (이정환), and Jeong Soo-jin (정수진).
Hundreds of others have been treated unjustly and without proper due process after the impeachment. They also faced charges made after sensational media reporting about their supposed sins; some are still under investigation, some are imprisoned, some are both, and three of them–Lieutenant General Lee Jae-su (이재수) (former commander of Defense Security Command), Prosecutor Byun Chang-hun (변창훈), and lawyer Jung Chi-ho (정치호)–lost their lives.
According to Heo hyeon-jun (허현준), former executive officer at the Blue House in the Park administration, about 700-800 people were charged and investigated under the Moon Jae-in administration; a partial list is below. They include ministers, national assemblymen, intelligence agency directors and employees, judges, lawyers, professors, police, entertainers, artists, journalists, a hair dresser, and ordinary citizens.
# | Name | Korean | # | Name | Korean |
1 | Kim Ki-choon | 김기춘 | 77 | Lee Sung-han | 이성한 |
2 | Cho Yoon-sun | 조윤선 | 78 | Yoon Jeon-chu | 윤전추 |
3 | Kim Sang-yule | 김상률 | 79 | Chung Mae-ju | 정매주 |
4 | Kim So-young | 김소영 | 80 | Kim Kyung-sook | 김경숙 |
5 | Kim Jong-deok | 김종덕 | 81 | Kim Jang-ja | 김장자 |
6 | Shin Dong-chul | 신동철 | 82 | Han Il | 한일 |
7 | Chung Kwan-ju | 정관주 | 83 | Chu Myong-ho | 추명호 |
8 | Park Jun-woo | 박준우 | 84 | Suh Chun-ho | 서천호 |
9 | Hyun Gi-hwan | 현기환 | 85 | Song Joo-wn | 송주원 |
10 | Kim Jae-won | 김재원 | 86 | Cho O-young | 조오영 |
11 | Oh Do-sung | 오도성 | 87 | Cho I-je | 조이제 |
12 | Heo Hyeon-jun | 허현준 | 88 | Im * * | 임** |
13 | Nam Jae-jun | 남재준 | 89 | Kim Tae-hee | 김태희 |
14 | Lee Byung-ki | 이병기 | 90 | Lee Jung-hyun | 이정현 |
15 | Lee Byong-ho | 이병호 | 91 | Sohn Sang-dae | 손상대 |
16 | Lee Hun-su | 이헌수 | 92 | Jeong Gwang-yong | 정광용 |
17 | Lee Won-jong | 이원종 | 93 | Byun Hee-jai | 변희재 |
18 | Lee Jae-man | 이재만 | 94 | Hwang Ui-won | 황의원 |
19 | An Bong-geun | 안봉근 | 95 | Lee Woo-hee | 이우희 |
20 | Jeong Ho-seong | 정호성 | 96 | Oh Moon-young | 오문영 |
21 | Choi Kyoung-hwan | 최경환 | 97 | Park Chan-ju | 박찬주 |
22 | Woo Byung-woo | 우병우 | 98 | An Joon-gyu | 안중규 |
23 | Chu Myung-ho | 추명호 | 99 | Moon Mi-jin | 문미진 |
24 | Choi Yoon-soo | 최윤수 | 100 | Lee Yong-kwon | 이용권 |
25 | Park Myung-jin | 박명진 | 101 | An Young-gil | 안영길 |
26 | Cho Won-dong | 조원동 | 102 | Choi Seok-won | 최석원 |
27 | Kim Young-suk | 김영석 | 103 | Park Yoon-gi | 박윤기 |
28 | Yoon Hak-bae | 윤학배 | 104 | Kang Jung-soon | 강정순 |
29 | So Gang-won | 소강원 | 105 | Lee Joo-sang | 이주상 |
30 | Kim Byung-chul | 김병철 | 106 | Han Yong-seok | 한용석 |
31 | Ki Woo-jin | 기우진 | 107 | Jang Myung-soon | 장명순 |
32 | Lee Jae-soo | 이재수 | 108 | Bae Ok-hwa | 배옥화 |
33 | Yang Sung-tae | 양승태 | 109 | Im Yoon-young | 임윤영 |
34 | Im Jong-heon | 임종헌 | 110 | Oh Gi-bok | 오기복 |
35 | Park Byeong-dae | 박병대 | 111 | Sohn Ok-ja | 손옥자 |
36 | Koh Young-han | 고영한 | 112 | Sohn Sam-soon | 손삼순 |
37 | Lee Min-geol | 이민걸 | 113 | Kim Jong-soon | 김종순 |
38 | Lee Gyu-jin | 이규진 | 114 | Yoo Kyung-jin | 유경진 |
39 | Im Sung-geun | 임성근 | 115 | Seo Do-jin | 서도진 |
40 | Shin Gwang-ryul | 신광렬 | 116 | Han Seo-hwan | 한서환 |
41 | Cho Yui-yeon | 조의연 | 117 | Choi Bong-sik | 최봉식 |
42 | Sung Chang-ho | 성창호 | 118 | Kim Jung-ran | 김정란 |
43 | Lee Tae-jong | 이태종 | 119 | name not revealed | *** |
44 | Shim Sang-chul | 심상철 | 120 | Chan Eun-taek | 차은택 |
45 | Bang Chang-hyun | 방창현 | 121 | Song Sung-gak | 송성각 |
46 | Yoo Hae-yong | 유해용 | 122 | Kim Young-su | 김영수 |
47 | Seo Chun-ho | 서천호 | 123 | Kim Hong-tak | 김홍탁 |
48 | Kim Jin-hong | 김진홍 | 124 | Kim Kyung-tae | 김경태 |
49 | Koh Il-hyun | 고일현 | 125 | Kim Jong | 김종 |
50 | Moon Jeong-uk | 문정욱 | 126 | Chang Si-ho | 장시호 |
51 | Ha Kyung-jun | 하경준 | 127 | Lee Jae-yong | 이재용 |
52 | Chang Ho-jung | 장호중 | 128 | Choi Gee-sung | 최지성 |
53 | Lee Je-yeong | 이제영 | 129 | Chang Choong-gi | 장충기 |
54 | Byun Chang-hun | 변창훈 | 130 | Park Sang-jin | 박상진 |
55 | Chung Chi-ho | 정치호 | 131 | Hwang Sung-soo | 황성수 |
56 | Kang Shin-myung | 강신명 | 132 | Shin Dong-bin | 신동빈 |
57 | Lee Chul-sung | 이철성 | 133 | Kim Kyung-sook | 김경숙 |
58 | Kim Sang-un | 김상운 | 134 | Namgoong Gon | 남궁곤 |
59 | Park Gi-ho | 박기호 | 135 | Choi Kyung-hee | 최경희 |
60 | Park Hwa-jin | 박화진 | 136 | Lee Won-jun | 이원준 |
61 | Chung Chang-bae | 정창배 | 137 | Lee Kyung-ok | 이경옥 |
62 | Hyun Gi-hwan | 현기환 | 138 | Ha Jung-hee | 하정희 |
63 | Lee Jae-sung | 이재성 | 139 | Yoo Chul-gyun | 유철균 |
64 | Kim Jang-soo | 김장수 | 140 | Lee In-sung | 이인성 |
65 | Kim Kwan-jin | 김관진 | 141 | Moon Hyung-pyo | 문형표 |
66 | Yoon Jeon-choo | 윤전추 | 142 | Hong Wan-sun | 홍완선 |
67 | Im Gwan-bin | 임관빈 | 143 | Kim Young-jae | 김영재 |
68 | Kim Tae-hyo | 김태효 | 144 | Kim Sang-man | 김상만 |
69 | Yeon Jae-wook | 연제욱 | 145 | Lee Young-seon | 이영선 |
70 | Ok Do-kyung | 옥도경 | 146 | Lee Im-soon | 이임순 |
71 | Lee Tae-ha | 이태하 | 147 | Chung Gi-yang | 정기양 |
72 | Baek Nak-jong | 백낙종 | 148 | Park Chae-yoon | 박채윤 |
73 | Kwon Joong-ryung | 권중령 | 149 | Chung Ho-sung | 정호성 |
74 | Chun Kyung-il | 전경일 | 150 | Ahn Jong-beom | 안종범 |
75 | Park Sang-jin | 박상진 | 151 | Choi Seo-won | 최서원 |
76 | Park Jae-hong | 박재홍 | 152 | Park Geun-hye | 박근혜 |
There have been serious violations of human rights under the Moon Jae-in administration. South Korea is a member of the United Nations (UN). One of the most fundamental documents adopted by the UN is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Under the UDHR:
- Article 7: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
- Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
- Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
- Article 11, (1): Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
The South Korean Constitution also has similar clauses. For instance, Section 11 of the South Korean Constitution states that all citizens are equal before the law.
Those who call for Park Geun-hye’s release are not only stating that she is innocent, but are also calling for restoring the gravely damaged rule of law in the Republic of Korea. All citizens should be equal before the law, not above or below, depending on their political affiliation.
All of these facts certainly cause people to question not only whether the impeachment was legitimate, but whether rule of law, an important component of liberal democracy, exists in South Korea. Again, the journalists at JTBC and other mass media have a crucial role, in fact, a responsibility, in reporting facts and informing the public, and helping to rebuild rule of law and improve human rights in South Korea.
For more on the impeachment, see “The Fall of the Rule of Law in South Korea: The Impeachment of Park Geun-Hye, Part I: The Media, the Tablet, Public Sentiment, Gookjeong Nongdan, and the National Assembly” https://eastasiaresearch.org/2019/07/12/the-fall-of-the-rule-of-law-in-south-korea-the-impeachment-of-park-geun-hye-part-i-the-media-the-tablet-public-sentiment-gookjeong-nongdan-and-the-national-assembly/
References (other than hyperlinked ones):
- Republic of Korea National Assembly, 대통령(박근혜)탄핵소추안 [Bill to Impeach President (Park Geun-hye)], Seoul, November 2016.
- Pyong-woo Kim, 한국의 법치주의는 죽었다 (South Korea’s Rule of Law is Dead), 72 and the ROK Constitution Section 65.
- Pyung-woo Kim, 탄핵을 탄핵한다 (Impeach the Impeachment), 2017, Seoul: Chogapje.com, 72.
- Republic of Korea National Assembly, Bill to Impeach the President, 2.
- Chae Myung-seong, Past Impeachment, Approaching Impeachment, 2019, Seoul: Giparang, 121.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
The Impeachment Resolution of December 3, 2016, voted on December 9, 2016, and submitted to the Constitutional Court on December 9, 2016.
I support Dr. Tara O and hope the truth will unveil!!
I sincerely appreciate your writing about the issues of Korea.
All truths will surely be revealed.