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)

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.

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):

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.