“I will not stand idle regarding the political prosecution's killing of Kim Min-seok”... The Democratic Party is making every effort for the Prime Minister's confirmation.

Introduction: The Reign of Political Prosecutors Begins Again

The Constitution of the Republic of Korea sets the separation and checks of power as core principles of democracy. In particular, the prosecution, which monopolizes the investigative and prosecutorial powers, has a political neutrality and legal legitimacy that are as crucial as lifelines, given the strength of its authority. However, the repeated selective investigations by the political prosecution and targeted investigations against opposition figures are seriously undermining this constitutional ideal. The recent initiation of an investigation by the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office into Prime Minister nominee Kim Min-seok cannot simply be viewed as a legal procedure concerning criminal allegations. At such a sensitive time, just before a confirmation hearing, the sudden start of the investigation without clear evidence of a crime can be interpreted as a blatant 'offensive' involving political intent. The prosecution has an obligation to ensure the neutrality and legitimacy of its investigations, but its recent actions appear to be a unilateral attack targeting specific political forces. The Democratic Party has taken a firm stance on this matter. The declaration that they will "not sit idly by" is not merely an expression of partisan sentiment, but a manifestation of political responsibility aimed at checking the excessive exercise of power by the prosecution and safeguarding the fundamentals of democracy. This article aims to closely examine why the series of events surrounding the investigation into nominee Kim Min-seok represents a significant threat to democracy and the legitimacy of the Democratic Party's response.

Main Point 1: Repeated Political Investigations Targeting Opposition by the Prosecutor's Office

The commencement of the prosecution's investigation into candidate Kim Min-seok appears to be more characterized by the intent of its timing than by the weight of the allegations themselves. When suspicions regarding the candidate's failure to report assets and bribery emerged, the prosecution quickly assigned the case to its Criminal Division 1 and initiated an investigation. While this action is cloaked in legal procedures, the timing of the investigation being made public just one day before the personnel hearing evokes memories of previous similar instances the prosecution has engaged in. Representative Kim Seong-hwan pointed out that this is "similar to the political maneuvering surrounding former Minister Cho Kuk in 2019," expressing strong caution. Indeed, at that time, the prosecution made public family-related investigations right before the hearing, thereby manipulating public opinion and ultimately escalating national conflict surrounding the minister's appointment. Democratic Party senior members, including Lee Un-joo and Kim Byeong-joo, also classified this investigation as a "clear political challenge to the president's appointment authority." They argue that the attempt to disrupt the hearing procedures and preemptively take down opposition figures poses a threat to the democratic order, more so than the factual truth of the investigation itself. Moreover, the fact that the prosecution launched an immediate investigation without the allegations being conclusively verified demonstrates that their actions are influenced more by political context than by legal merit. Initiating an investigation based on insufficiently substantiated accusations does not align with the public's expectations or the fairness of the law. This raises concerns that the prosecution is becoming a tool of political power rather than serving as an agency of law enforcement.

Main Point 2: The Democratic Party's Just Response and Political Responsibility

The Democratic Party responded immediately to the prosecution's movements. However, their response goes beyond mere partisan defense it is interpreted as a responsible political act aimed at correcting the behavior of a political prosecution and protecting the constitutional order. Representative Park Joo-min criticized strongly by stating, "We will never overlook the killing of Kim Min-seok," clearly showing a resolute stance against the political prosecution. This is not merely a defense to protect a specific candidate but a pledge from the political arena not to overlook acts that undermine democratic processes. Democratic Party spokesperson Lee Geon-tae expressed hope that "the prosecution, which is on the verge of reform, will not take candidate Kim hostage," framing the issue not as a mere political offensive but as part of a struggle toward structural reform. Faced with repeated incidents that undermine the neutrality and independence of the prosecution, the Democratic Party finds itself in a position where it can no longer limit itself to simple protests and must engage in institutional responses. The Democratic Party has also hinted at its intention to hold a plenary session independently to push for approval if the personnel hearing is obstructed. This is not simply an attitude of ignoring procedures, but rather a strong message that it will not tolerate the current situation where constitutional procedures are being hindered. The hearing process should be a venue for verification, not a trap for political downfall.

Main Point 3: A Turning Point to Correct the ills of Political Prosecution

This incident is not simply a personal issue of candidate Kim Min-seok. It is an event that reveals once again the structural flaws of the political prosecution, and the Democratic Party aims to seize this as an opportunity for institutional reform. Key figures from the opposition, including Representative Lee Jae-myung, former Minister Cho Kuk, and Representative Hwang Un-ha, have consecutively become targets of prosecution investigations, and controversies regarding the legitimacy of those investigations continue to this day. Candidate Kim Min-seok has also previously been investigated for violations of political finance laws, and there were criticisms that the prosecution conducted the investigation in a way that imposed a one-sided frame and distorted his political image. The recurring pattern of these investigations cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence, and there is no escaping the suspicion that the prosecution is functioning as a substantial political actor. Therefore, the Democratic Party has been advocating for institutional reforms to secure political neutrality, particularly strengthening independent oversight mechanisms in the initiation and prosecution process of investigations by the prosecution. This is not meant to protect a specific political faction, but is an inevitable measure to ensure that the powerful authority of the prosecution operates within the principles of democracy. Reform to restore public trust and prevent the misuse of power is now a necessity, not an option.

Conclusion: An Inevitable Struggle to Protect Democracy

The investigation by the prosecution into candidate Kim Min-seok is not merely an attack on an individual. It is a dangerous attempt that directly denies the powers of the political forces and the legislature elected by the people, and further undermines the political choices of the citizens. If the prosecution repeatedly intervenes in political matters, shaking the authority and public opinion, it not only undermines the foundation of the separation of powers but also seriously damages the principles of democracy. The Democratic Party's response this time is not a political defense line, but an inevitable duty to uphold constitutional principles. The fight to establish the common sense that no power exists above the law, as well as justice and judicial neutrality, is not a partisan issue but a public task. Democracy is not an institution but a practice. Any attempt to undermine the authority delegated by the people cannot be tolerated, and fighting against it is the duty and responsibility of a democratic party. This struggle is not only about protecting candidate Kim Min-seok. It is a testament to the fact that democracy in this country is still alive and is also a historical turning point to break the cycle of abuse of power. As long as the prosecution's anachronistic behavior continues, we must constantly remember and realize the essence of democracy. And one thing must be clearly stated. The appointment of Congressman Kim Min-seok as Prime Minister is now a trend that no political force or any onslaught from the prosecution can stop. It is evidence that the power guaranteed by the constitution and the party chosen by the people is functioning, and history will prove that any political interference cannot ultimately reverse this trend.