Structure of External Pressure in Drug Investigations and Failure of Power Checks Seen through the Revelation of Chief Baek Hae-ryong

Introduction

The large-scale drug smuggling case originating from Malaysia in 2023 shocked Korean society. 108 kg of methamphetamine was smuggled in through Incheon and Gimpo airports, and during the investigation, the police captured signs of involvement from insiders in government agencies, including customs officials. However, the investigation team was later disbanded, and Chief Inspector Baek Hae-ryong, who led the team, was demoted. Beyond a simple drug investigation, this case reveals the structural facets of investigative pressure, organized concealment by power institutions, and a crisis of the rule of law.

Structure of Investigation Circumstances and External Pressure

In the first half of 2023, the police began an investigation after securing a confession from a Malaysian organized crime member about smuggling methamphetamine into the country. Subsequently, evidence emerged that an Incheon International Airport customs officer intentionally omitted search procedures to facilitate the drug smuggling. The investigation team applied for search warrants against the customs officers involved, but the Southern District Prosecutors' Office in Seoul rejected the applications twice and denied a request to transfer the jurisdiction to another prosecutor's office. During the same period, senior police officials and customs officials pressured Inspector Baek to exclude customs-related matters from reports, and a customs officer even visited the police station in an attempt to influence the investigation's direction. Following this, the investigation team was disbanded, and Inspector Baek was reassigned from Seoul to a local district office in North Jeolla Province. This can be interpreted as a typical instance of obstruction of justice or organized concealment.

Baek Kyung-jeong's revelations and accusations

After the dissolution of the investigation team and a transfer to a lesser position, Deputy Superintendent Baek Hae-ryong became a whistleblower. In July 2024, he reported nine individuals, including the then Chief of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service, and senior police officials, to the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials, revealing the reality of external pressure. He later testified at the National Assembly's Administrative Safety Committee that there were directives based on the intentions of Yongsan, and in June 2025, he publicly criticized the prosecution through a press conference in front of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, stating that "the prosecution is trying to cover up the truth through self-investigation." He has continuously demanded the necessity of a special prosecutor who can ensure independence and fairness.

Current investigation status and key issues

The government launched a joint investigation team composed of the prosecution, police, customs, and the Financial Intelligence Unit in June 2025. However, the superintendent Baek and the defense counsel expressed their stance of noncompliance with the investigation, stating that 'the subject of the investigation becomes the commanding officer of the investigation,' highlighting a contradictory structure. Particularly, concerns about fairness and independence persist, as the joint investigation team is operated under the leadership of the prosecution. This case demonstrates how power abuse and external pressure within the public authority undermine the neutrality and justice of the investigation, calling for institutional reflection and improvement.

Domestic Analysis: What if the external pressure from former President Yoon Seok-yeol's side is true?

The following content is clearly stated as an analysis based on assumptions rather than confirmed facts. If former President Yoon Suk-yeol or key figures around him directed the suppression of the investigation or exerted external pressure, the following hypothetical motivations might exist: Protection of the regime's image. If large-scale drug smuggling through airports and customs were to be revealed, it could expose the regime's incompetence in governance and failure in security, which may seriously damage the regime's morality and administrative credibility, suggesting a possibility of attempted concealment of the incident. Prevention of high-ranking officials' involvement. In addition to customs officials, there are claims of some indications of collusion with high-ranking personnel within the prosecution and police. If these officials were involved in the case, the political repercussions could have spread to the core of the regime, leading to attempts at suppression from the upper echelons. Avoidance of political risk before the general election. The timing at which the incident came to light was sensitive, just before the 2024 general election. If organized crime becomes a political issue, it could be fatal for the ruling party, indicating that political considerations may have been at play. In this regard, there may have been a strong awareness of the political downfall that the LH incident during the Moon Jae-in administration could have caused. In 2021, after it was revealed that employees of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH) used insider information to engage in large-scale speculation before the announcement of the third new town, public outrage exploded. The regime's core slogan of 'equality of opportunity, fairness of process' collapsed, presidential approval ratings plummeted, and the ruling party suffered a crushing defeat in the by-elections. Therefore, the Yoon Suk-yeol government may have attempted to suppress the drug case under the judgment that revealing the corruption of insiders in public power could destabilize the regime itself, fearing it could turn into a 'second LH incident.' Defense instinct of the prosecution's power. Concerns that the target of the investigation could be the prosecution may have triggered the defense instinct of the prosecution organization, and it cannot be ruled out that attempts at investigation obstruction or internal concealment were made as a result. These hypothetical motivations can be inferred indirectly through circumstances and structures, but cannot be definitively concluded without concrete evidence. Therefore, this matter should be clearly addressed through legal investigation.

Reform of institutions for checks and balances and the rule of law

This incident vividly demonstrates the risks that arise when checks and balances among powers fail to operate effectively. The reality where the prosecution can be both the subject and defender of an investigation, and where police investigations are undermined by power institutions such as the prosecution and the customs office, is contrary to the rule of law. Solutions requiring institutional reforms include: permanent introduction of a special prosecutor system: practical operation of a special prosecutor system that can guarantee the independence of the investigative authority in cases involving high-ranking officials. Strengthening the whistleblower protection law: prohibition of retaliation against internal whistleblowers and enhancement of identity protection measures. Establishing a public external pressure disclosure system: creating procedures that allow for reporting, documenting, and making public external pressures that occur during the investigation process. Revisiting the separation of investigation and prosecution: a need for re-examination of the current structure that is effectively centered around the prosecution even after the adjustment of investigative rights between the police and prosecution.

Conclusion

The allegations of organized external pressure from high-ranking officials in the Customs Service, Prosecutor's Office, and Police are not merely about the suppression of incidents, but represent a serious issue that could undermine trust in the rule of law and the overall power structure in South Korea. The whistleblowing by Police Commissioner Baek Haeryong is not just an act of personal courage, but a warning for the oversight of public power and the functioning of democracy. If the cover-up of the investigation was carried out under the orders of the regime's core, it exceeds a simple violation of law and constitutes a breach of constitutional order, necessitating a thorough investigation and accountability for those responsible. This incident should serve as a turning point for institutional reform and power oversight, and that is the restoration of justice and the rule of law.