Blocking the site of 'KCC hard disk shredding' - Lee Jin-suk's clarification

Introduction: The Crushing Site, Reasons for the Halt

On the morning of June 27, 2025, a large-scale shredding operation was taking place at the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) office in Gwacheon, government complex. Over 130 work-related PC hard drives were being shattered. However, this scene soon came to a halt when members of the National Assembly's Science, Technology, Information and Broadcasting Committee, along with the police, conducted a surprise inspection. What appeared to be a simple equipment disposal turned into a significant controversy involving allegations of “document concealment” and “evidence destruction,” leading to debates about the power structure between senior officials and public servants at the KCC, as well as issues of procedural legitimacy. This incident brought intense scrutiny not just to the act of physically destroying hard drives, but also to the series of abnormal procedures revealed during the process, the structural evasion of responsibility within the organization, and the gaps in public record management. In particular, the explanation provided by KCC Chairwoman Lee Jin-sook further fueled the controversy, leading to unusually severe criticism in the National Assembly. This essay aims to explore the factual context of the KCC hard drive shredding incident, as well as the underlying institutional problems and responsibility structures that are concealed within it.

Main Point ①: Progress of the Incident and Key Issues

The beginning of this incident was as claimed by the Korea Communications Commission, 'the disposal of hard disks due to the expiration of their durability.' The Commission explained that, in accordance with the information device disposal guidelines commonly implemented by public institutions, hard disks that have been in use for more than three years would be replaced and discarded. Consequently, the heads of some departments requested this task to an external company, with the procedure reportedly receiving approval through internal documentation, according to the official position of the Commission. However, the problem arose from the fact that this administrative processing did not follow official procedures. In fact, the representative of the company responsible for the shredding revealed that they received a verbal request via a phone call without a contract, and the payment for shredding the hard disks was described as a method of revenue compensation through 'recovery of parts after shredding' instead of cash payment. This is an extremely unusual method for budget execution in public institutions. Particularly, the fact that fundamental aspects of service contracts such as 'contract preparation' and 'task directive issuance' were omitted while the work was being conducted suggests a possibility of illegality beyond mere administrative incompetence. The urgent visit to the site by the National Assembly's Science, Technology, Information, Broadcasting and Communications Committee, accompanied by police, was also due to this procedural abnormality. The fact that even those present at the site did not understand why the police were coming indicates that there was no guarantee of transparency in this operation even within the Commission. Ultimately, this site turned into a nationwide issue alongside the suspension of work, leading both the media and the National Assembly to begin investigating the underlying details of this incident.

Main Point ②: The Chairman's Responsibility and the Facet of Organizational Culture

After the crushing work was halted, the National Assembly's Science, Technology, Information, Broadcasting and Communications Committee immediately summoned Chairman Lee Jin-sook of the Korea Communications Commission to inquire about the circumstances of the incident and the responsibility involved. Chairman Lee stated, 'It was a decision made by the manager,' clarifying that she had not been informed about it and that it was a matter carried out based on the judgment of the staff. In response, not only the opposition parties but also ruling party members strongly protested. In particular, Committee Chair Choi Min-hee criticized the evasion of responsibility by asking, 'Does it make sense that a subordinate could unilaterally dispose of over 130 hard drives without a contract?' This explanation goes beyond just the stance of the chairman and exemplifies the administrative culture and hierarchical structure of the Korea Communications Commission, a central government agency. If a staff manager could dispose of information assets worth tens of millions of won through unofficial channels based solely on their own judgment, it suggests two possibilities: either there was implicit or verbal direction from above, or the internal control system of the Commission has been rendered ineffective or intentionally allowed unofficial routes. In public institutions, all budgets and assets should be managed through contracts and execution documents, which are the minimum mechanisms to ensure accountability and transparency. However, in this incident, that basic principle was undermined, and the highest responsible officer's explanation of 'not being informed' can be seen as contradicting the principles of administrative accountability.

Main point ③: Allegations of document concealment and evidence destruction

One of the reasons this incident has gone beyond a simple level of equipment disposal and caused social repercussions is due to the internal documents that are presumed to have been contained within the hard drives. According to some media reports, it has been suggested that among the hard drives slated for disposal is an internal report related to Chairperson Jin Soo-young's 'dual leadership operation' policy. This document became a source of significant conflict within the Korea Communications Commission, as the plan to operate the commission with a dual leadership system, including the chief secretary and the spokesman, elicited backlash from numerous employees. The timing of the shredding, the existence of the documents, and the unofficial manner of disposal combined have led to this incident being quickly expanded into allegations of 'evidence destruction.' In fact, it has been revealed that the Korea Communications Commission intended to physically dispose of the documents without determining whether they were subject to preservation, which is an act that may violate the Public Records Management Act. Particularly, similar to the controversy over the disposal of old PCs in the Yongsan presidential office in 2023, if the data within the hard drives is likely to be core material that could clarify the truth of the incident, disposing of such storage media without preservation may incur criminal liability. Given that it is hard to assume that the Korea Communications Commission was unaware of this, the shredding provides sufficient context to suspect 'intent.'

Conclusion: A Crisis of Trust Revealed by Institutional Gaps

The Broadcasting and Communications Commission hard disk destruction incident is not simply a matter of administrative error by public officials or equipment disposal. This incident demonstrates how public institutions manage their budget, equipment, and internal documents, as well as who is responsible in crisis situations. The fact that contracts are made without official procedures and that the highest person in charge shifts responsibility onto the staff by claiming they 'were not informed' fundamentally undermines public trust. Furthermore, this incident has brought to light issues related to the document handling practices of government agencies, unofficial work directives, budget transparency, and the importance of preserving internal documents. The destruction of a single hard disk can ultimately lead to significant consequences such as the loss of public records and the concealment of the truth. This Broadcasting Commission incident warns that without thorough investigation by the relevant authorities and institutional improvements, similar cases may be repeated. It is time to comprehensively review the budget execution procedures, record preservation systems, and standards of administrative accountability in crisis situations to restore transparency and accountability in public institutions. What the Broadcasting Commission attempted to destroy was not just a storage device, but the fundamental trust in public administration. Now, collecting the fragments and reconstructing the truth is the responsibility of the National Assembly and society as a whole.