Justice minister nominee mirrors president's legal risks

Columns Kim Seung-won's suspended indictment over alleged clinical trial lobbying intensifies scrutiny of President Lee Jae Myung's Cabinet choice. Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won arrives at his office in the Jeokseon Hyundai Building in Jongno District, central Seoul, on the morning of Sept. 7 to prepare for his confirmation hearing. JOINT PRESS CORPS Lee Hyun-sang The author is a columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo. Justice minister nominee Kim Seung-won's text message to the head of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) reeks of a suspicious deal involving a businessperson, broker and politician. The sequence described in a district court ruling that sentenced a businessperson surnamed Kang to three years in prison, suspended for five years, is so familiar that it would seem clichéd even in a movie. In 2021, Kang, the founder of Genencell, a developer of a Covid-19 treatment, asked a woman surnamed Yang, who allegedly had political connections, to lobby for the rapid approval of clinical trials. Yang sought help from Kim, then a lawmaker whom she referred to as oppa , or older brother, who then texted the MFDS chief. In a call with Yang, Kim said, 'The moment that [the clinical trials] receive MFDS approval, [Genencell] can make hundreds of billions of won.' He clearly understood the enormous financial stakes. Shortly before the MFDS approved Genencell's clinical trial plan, Kang transferred 660,000 shares worth about 6.3 billion won ($4.7 million) to investor Sejong Medical. The MFDS later revoked its approval after authorities found that Kang had submitted manipulated and incomplete experimental data. Sejong Medical was subsequently delisted, inflicting heavy losses on investors. Prosecutors concluded that Kim had agreed to receive 5 million won in political donations in return for arranging clinical approval but suspended his indictment because no money was actually exchanged and the request itself could not clearly be deemed illegal. Kim said that he merely conveyed a grievance in the public interest and filed a constitutional petition challenging the decision. His response — confronting the judicial and investigative systems while calling the probe politically motivated and targeted — bears an uncanny resemblance to President Lee Jae Myung's claim that his own legal risks resulted from fabricated investigations targeting a political opponent. A conservative civic group has filed a complaint asking police to reinvestigate Kim. Rep. Han Dong-hoon, citing prosecution records, claimed that investigators considered indicting Kim and seeking an eight-month prison term but were blocked by senior prosecutors. That allegation requires separate verification. Still, the controversy is particularly awkward because the justice minister is responsible for safeguarding the rule of law. Even if Kim ultimately faces no criminal liability, the unresolved questions surrounding his conduct create an obvious conflict with the credibility required by the office. The fact that a nominee to become the country's top official overseeing justice administration received a suspended indictment over suspected criminal conduct cannot be treated too lightly. In 'Don't Think of an Elephant!' (2004), George Lakoff argues that trying to negate a frame can reinforce it in the public mind. Lee has done the opposite. He nominated Kim, who had spearheaded calls to withdraw the indictments against the president. In effect, Lee brought the 'elephant' of his legal risks into the center of government. The Cabinet reshuffle on Aug. 30 was Lee's attempt to reverse falling approval ratings. To placate complaints within the ruling camp that what was expected to be an 'extension' had become a 'reconstruction,' he accommodated figures on the left, such as Basic Income Party leader Yong Hye-in, and retreated from policies that were costing votes. But public sentiment did not turn. In Gallup Korea's first September survey, Lee's job approval fell to 40 percent, its lowest since his inauguration, while disapproval reached a new high of 51 percent. Many factors may explain the erosion, but public wariness and distrust surrounding Lee's legal risks cannot be ignored. Appointing a justice minister who shares that vulnerability could seem like a direct challenge to public sentiment. Kim has drawn a line, saying that the justice minister has no direct authority to withdraw indictments and that he does not intend to order the prosecutor general to do so. But doubts persist because the justice minister controls prosecutorial personnel and oversees criminal justice administration. Through personnel authority, a minister can influence the atmosphere within the prosecution, and the possibility of invoking supervisory authority at a decisive moment cannot be ruled out. Ultimately, the public will decide whether Lee's decision to bring the 'elephant' into the heart of state affairs proves a clever move or a self-defeating one. This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.