A Response to JTBC, Part II: The Truth about the Impeachment of South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye and the Rule of Law

Last modified date

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

Republic of 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)

  1. Citizen’s sovereignty and representative democracy
  2. The Principle of Rule of Law
  3. The President’s responsibility to defend and obey the Constitution
  4. Career civil service system
  5. The Power to appoint and dismiss given to the president
  6. The Principle of equality
  7. The Guarantee of private property
  8. The Freedom to choose one’s employment
  9. The State’s responsibility to guarantee basic human rights
  10. The Market economy order based on economic freedom and private autonomy of individuals and corporations
  11.  Freedom of speech
  12. “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.

Constitutional Court Judge Kang Il-won

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. 

The 8 Constitutional Court judges presiding over the impeachment trial. From top left: Lee Jung-mi (이정미), Cho Yong-ho (조용호), Kim Yi-su (김이수), Lee Jin-sung (이진성), Ahn Chang-ho (안창호), Kang Il-won 강일원), Seo Ki-seog (서기석) , and Kim Chang-jong (김창종)

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

Seoul lower court judge Kim Se-yoon

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.

#NameKorean# Name Korean
1Kim Ki-choon김기춘77Lee Sung-han이성한
2Cho Yoon-sun조윤선78Yoon Jeon-chu윤전추
3Kim Sang-yule김상률79Chung Mae-ju정매주
4Kim So-young김소영80Kim Kyung-sook김경숙
5Kim Jong-deok김종덕81Kim Jang-ja김장자
6Shin Dong-chul신동철82Han Il한일
7Chung Kwan-ju정관주83Chu Myong-ho추명호
8Park Jun-woo박준우84Suh Chun-ho서천호
9Hyun Gi-hwan현기환85Song Joo-wn송주원
10Kim Jae-won김재원86Cho O-young조오영
11Oh Do-sung오도성87Cho I-je조이제
12Heo Hyeon-jun허현준88Im * *임**
13Nam Jae-jun남재준89Kim Tae-hee김태희
14Lee Byung-ki이병기90Lee Jung-hyun이정현
15Lee Byong-ho이병호91Sohn Sang-dae손상대
16Lee Hun-su이헌수92Jeong Gwang-yong정광용
17Lee Won-jong이원종93Byun Hee-jai변희재
18Lee Jae-man이재만94Hwang Ui-won황의원
19An Bong-geun안봉근95Lee Woo-hee이우희
20Jeong Ho-seong정호성96Oh Moon-young오문영
21Choi Kyoung-hwan최경환97Park Chan-ju박찬주
22Woo Byung-woo우병우98An Joon-gyu안중규
23Chu Myung-ho추명호99Moon Mi-jin문미진
24Choi Yoon-soo최윤수100Lee Yong-kwon이용권
25Park Myung-jin박명진101An Young-gil안영길
26Cho Won-dong조원동102Choi Seok-won최석원
27Kim Young-suk김영석103Park Yoon-gi박윤기
28Yoon Hak-bae윤학배104Kang Jung-soon강정순
29So Gang-won소강원105Lee Joo-sang이주상
30Kim Byung-chul김병철106Han Yong-seok한용석
31Ki Woo-jin기우진107Jang Myung-soon장명순
32Lee Jae-soo이재수108Bae Ok-hwa배옥화
33Yang Sung-tae양승태109Im Yoon-young임윤영
34Im Jong-heon임종헌110Oh Gi-bok오기복
35Park Byeong-dae박병대111Sohn Ok-ja손옥자
36Koh Young-han고영한112Sohn Sam-soon손삼순
37Lee Min-geol이민걸113Kim Jong-soon김종순
38Lee Gyu-jin이규진114Yoo Kyung-jin유경진
39Im Sung-geun임성근115Seo Do-jin서도진
40Shin Gwang-ryul신광렬116Han Seo-hwan한서환
41Cho Yui-yeon조의연117Choi Bong-sik최봉식
42Sung Chang-ho성창호118Kim Jung-ran김정란
43Lee Tae-jong이태종119name not revealed***
44Shim Sang-chul심상철120Chan Eun-taek차은택
45Bang Chang-hyun방창현121Song Sung-gak송성각
46Yoo Hae-yong유해용122Kim Young-su김영수
47Seo Chun-ho서천호123Kim Hong-tak김홍탁
48Kim Jin-hong김진홍124Kim Kyung-tae김경태
49Koh Il-hyun고일현125Kim Jong김종
50Moon Jeong-uk문정욱126Chang Si-ho장시호
51Ha Kyung-jun하경준127Lee Jae-yong이재용
52Chang Ho-jung장호중128Choi Gee-sung최지성
53Lee Je-yeong이제영129Chang Choong-gi장충기
54Byun Chang-hun변창훈130Park Sang-jin박상진
55Chung Chi-ho정치호131Hwang Sung-soo황성수
56Kang Shin-myung강신명132Shin Dong-bin신동빈
57Lee Chul-sung이철성133Kim Kyung-sook김경숙
58Kim Sang-un김상운134Namgoong Gon남궁곤
59Park Gi-ho박기호135Choi Kyung-hee최경희
60Park Hwa-jin박화진136Lee Won-jun이원준
61Chung Chang-bae정창배137Lee Kyung-ok이경옥
62Hyun Gi-hwan현기환138Ha Jung-hee하정희
63Lee Jae-sung이재성139Yoo Chul-gyun유철균
64Kim Jang-soo김장수140Lee In-sung이인성
65Kim Kwan-jin김관진141Moon Hyung-pyo문형표
66Yoon Jeon-choo윤전추142Hong Wan-sun홍완선
67Im Gwan-bin임관빈143Kim Young-jae김영재
68Kim Tae-hyo김태효144Kim Sang-man김상만
69Yeon Jae-wook연제욱145Lee Young-seon이영선
70Ok Do-kyung옥도경146Lee Im-soon이임순
71Lee Tae-ha이태하147Chung Gi-yang정기양
72Baek Nak-jong백낙종148Park Chae-yoon박채윤
73Kwon Joong-ryung권중령149Chung Ho-sung정호성
74Chun Kyung-il전경일150Ahn Jong-beom안종범
75Park Sang-jin박상진151Choi Seo-won최서원
76Park Jae-hong박재홍152Park Geun-hye박근혜
This is not a complete list and the English spelling of some names is approximate.

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):

  1. Republic of Korea National Assembly, 대통령(박근혜)탄핵소추안 [Bill to Impeach President (Park Geun-hye)], Seoul, November 2016.
  2. Pyong-woo Kim, 한국의 법치주의는 죽었다 (South Korea’s Rule of Law is Dead), 72 and the ROK Constitution Section 65. 
  3. Pyung-woo Kim, 탄핵을 탄핵한다 (Impeach the Impeachment), 2017, Seoul:  Chogapje.com, 72. 
  4. Republic of Korea National Assembly, Bill to Impeach the President, 2.
  5. Chae Myung-seong, Past Impeachment, Approaching Impeachment, 2019, Seoul: Giparang, 121.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid.

The Impeachment Resolution of December 3, 2016, voted on December 9, 2016, and submitted to the Constitutional Court on December 9, 2016.

_

Share