,
, ‘[YTN Radio The Interview]’,
,
, ‘□ Broadcast: FM 94. 5 (07:15~09:00)’,
, ‘□ Broadcast date: November 13, 2025 (Thursday)’,
, ‘□ Host: Anchor Kim Young-soo’,
, ‘□ Guests: Kim Jun-il, Current Affairs Critic, Kang Chan-ho, Central Daily Editorial Writer, Kim Yong-nam, Former Assemblyman’,
,
, ‘Kim Jun-il’,
, “- The decision to give up the appeal was fact-based, and the ‘responsibility theory’ of Acting Chief Normanseok is unavoidable”,
, “- Minister Jeong Seong-ho’s statement on ‘careful consideration’ was ultimately a ‘very inappropriate pressure'”,
, “- Acting Chief Normanseok, the pinnacle of political prosecution, tried to save the organization but made a ‘decision that killed the prosecution'”,
, “- The criticism of ‘selective anger’ when compared to the Deutsche Motors case is valid… However, this incident is ‘clearly problematic'”,
,
, ‘Kang Chan-ho’,
, “- Normanseok’s use of ‘that side’ admits pressure from the top… The formal approver is avoiding the essence”,
, “- The top pressure targets not only I Jin-soo and Jeong Seong-ho but also aims squarely at ‘President Lee Jae-myung’!”,
, “- The government left the acting system unchecked… The actual head is Minister of Justice Jeong Seong-ho, who should resign immediately and be investigated”,
, ‘- Suspicions of ‘billions in special favors’ to a criminal enemy like Kim Man-bae, suggesting an interest of the regime top leaders”‘,
,
, ‘Kim Yong-nam’,
, “- No call between Jeong Seong-ho and Normanseok; the deputy minister was not a superior… Ministry of Justice’s direct involvement is ‘groundless'”,
, “- Even by giving up the appeal, President Lee Jae-myung gained ‘zero practical benefit’… Legally, there was nothing to gain”,
, “- The decision to waive immediate appeal by Sim Woo-jeong was also ‘ridiculous’… Acting Chief Normanseok is ‘a fool'”,
, ‘- The problem is Normanseok felt the call from the deputy as external pressure! Legally oral orders are not possible, he lay down in advance’,
,
, ‘* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast, so please refer to the broadcast for more accurate content. ‘,
,
, ‘[Please indicate that the content is from YTN Radio when quoting. ]’,
,
, “◆ Kim Young-soo: We will start the full-scale political talk ‘National Assembly Train Yong Il-ho’ that we meet on Thursdays on . How do our listeners view the prosecution’s decision to give up the appeal? Both the chief prosecutor of the Central District and the acting prosecutor general have offered to resign. Former lawmaker Kim Yong-nam, current affairs critic Kim Jun-il, and Central Daily editorial writer Kang Chan-ho are with us. Welcome. I’m very curious to know how the three of you see the prosecution’s decision to forgo the appeal. Who do you think made this decision?”,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: Broadly, it was decided by Normanseok, who was then the acting prosecutor general.’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: Who do you think decided?’,
,
, ‘□ Kim Jun-il: It was Normanseok who made the decision. Whether there was external pressure or whatever, the decision-maker was indeed Normanseok.’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: The decision-maker is Normanseok?’,
,
, ‘□ Kim Jun-il: It’s all revealed by objective facts. Considering the situation, someone needs to take political responsibility.’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: I see. The acting prosecutor general, who offered to resign, gave up the appeal. So why did he choose to give up the appeal?’,
,
, “■ Kang Chan-ho: Last night, Acting Chief Normanseok expressed his thoughts to reporters at his home. He used the term ‘that side’. He tried to protect the prosecution but faced many challenges and eventually had no choice but to make the decision, feeling relieved as a result. If we put it all together, it seems like he believed the judgment was most disadvantageous and direct to the Seongnam city leadership, and said they were trying to erase it. He implied he was under enormous pressure from ‘that side’ to erase future penalties or accusations. You two said Normanseok is just a formal approver, but it’s like asking the soldiers or commanders to take responsibility after declaring martial law and deploying them. This sounds like the acting prosecutor general himself publicly admitted the huge pressure he faced with his statements to the press. I’d like to offer a reasonable inference about who ‘that side’ might be. Firstly, Deputy Minister of Justice I Jin-soo seems to have communicated in a way that can be viewed as pressure based on several situations. Then there’s Minister Jeong Seong-ho, who supposedly told Normanseok to be cautious. Even young people in their 20s say, ‘When a boss tells you to consider carefully, it actually means do not do it.’ So, beyond I Jin-soo and Jeong Seong-ho, who else is there? Well, regarding the decision on whether to appeal or not, if you connect the dots, it leads to President Lee Jae-myung. Isn’t he the leadership? The person who appointed Minister Jeong Seong-ho and ultimately supervises this situation is the top authority, directing the leadership’s attention firmly.”,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: How do you see it, Mr. Kim Yong-nam?’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: Firstly, Minister Jeong Seong-ho never had any direct conversation with Acting Chief Normanseok. They claim the deputy minister, I Jin-soo, had a call with him, but there’s no evidence that Minister Jeong told the deputy to call. In the hierarchy, a deputy minister is not above the acting prosecutor general. The general is higher. It’s nonsensical to say otherwise. Even though he was not the official general, an acting one, but forfeiting the appeal doesn’t bring any legal or factual gain to President Lee Jae-myung. If the case had gone to appeals and reached a Supreme Court decision, which could exonerate them on charges of breach of duty, then legally it would have been beneficial. But confirming everything in 1st tier court due to the prosecution’s forfeit of appeal doesn’t influence other trials as a precedent. Normanseok’s comment that he acted to save the prosecution? Perhaps he acted to save himself. This will only lead to the downfall of the prosecution. It’s an unfathomable decision. Normanseok, the acting prosecutor general, is’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: The presidential office said there was no involvement at all. Chief of Staff Woo Sang-ho says it holds no practical benefit. What are your thoughts, Critic Kim Jun-il?’,
,
, ‘□ Kim Jun-il: Contrary to the perspective of two people mentioned by Kang Chan-ho, perspectives differ. It’s not right to lump everyone together. Fundamentally, Normanseok was the one to decide this, an undeniable fact. Whether there was external pressure is a matter of interpretation based on the uncovered facts. Looking at it in hindsight, Minister of Justice Jeong Seong-ho acted very inappropriately, whether he commented carefully or told Normanseok to reconsider carefully. If someone like you, Kang Chan-ho, hypothetically told me “think carefully about your vacation” and then someone at my company, let’s say my boss, says the same, the impact isn’t equivalent, right? The latter is a lot more pressing. This only can essentially be felt as pressure. Positions that involve political sensitivity inevitably face results-based judgment. The societal disturbances and political burdens brought upon by this incident, which affected the government’s management post the APEC summit, should not be understated. So it’s inappropriate for Minister Jeong Seong-ho regardless of the reason. Meanwhile, judging if Acting Chief Normanseok appropriately handled this knowing the structure within the prosecution – consistent statements made elsewhere are that he should step down immediately. Even during the non-prosecution of Deutsche Motors stock manipulation, prosecutors bent swiftly; this is another instance. Saying ‘consider carefully’ – as the acting prosecutor general, shouldn’t he express taking care of his organization? Regardless of how ‘cautious’ is meant, liberally interpreting it doesn’t make sense, and thus extending from now on, it will affect various political spheres. Meanwhile, the opposition voices within the Democratic Party say that Normanseok didn’t do anything wrong, advocating for his retention. I think he needs to take responsibility first, and matters of political judgment need political solutions. So, once again, I hope you wouldn’t generalize in this way.’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: Mr. Kim Yong-nam, you were in the prosecution, right? How is it within? There is often talk of prosecutor unity in such situations. Surely, there are different opinions.’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: This situation doesn’t directly relate to matters of ‘unity’. Forgoing the appeal is highly unusual. Back on March 8 of this year, General Sim Woo-jeong opted not to seek an immediate appeal on the court’s cancellation of the arrest of the defendant, Yoon Seok-yeol. Even back then, understanding it was hard. It seemed absurd. The current appeal forfeiture feels similar. In regards to opposition parties that haven’t appealed regarding campaign law violations – that deals with sentence matters. In this case, some charges were found not guilty. The bribery charge under the special law was acquitted.’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: The specific breach of duty was acquitted too. But it wasn’t because the act was deemed unacknowledged, but due to difficulty in quantifying the financial benefit amount. The idea is, figuring out what could be gained through normal real estate operations versus any added gain from breach actions makes it ambiguous; hence not guilty. In such cases, the way forward is to appeal to receive an upper court’s judgment. General Sim Woo-jeong’s waiving of immediate appeal and this decision to forfeit prosecution have overlapping absurdities. The person who must take full accountability is Acting Prosecutor General Normanseok.’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: I see.’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: If a family is bound to ruin, they’ll often have a spoiled child or a foolish offspring.’,
,
, ‘■ Kang Chan-ho: Allow me to ask – who appointed these ‘foolish progeny’? The Lee Jae-myung administration appointed them. I am not referring to Sim Woo-jeong’,
,
, ‘■ Kang Chan-ho: They weren’t talking about Sim Woo-jeong specifically. That might be misunderstanding. But regarding Normanseok who was his acting successor, this person was distinctly appointed by the Lee administration. The supreme prosecutor of the Lee administration.’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: That isn’t entirely accurate. When Sim Woo-jeong stepped down without completing his term, the Commissioner then transitioned into acting, appointed under the Yoon Seok-yeol administration. Where the specific appointment comes from is less relevant than lamenting the inept decision made by people in top prosecutorial roles which is frankly baffling.’,
,
, ‘■ Kang Chan-ho: Though appearing like a debate, our arguments align. An appeal was necessary. While Normanseok holds primary accountability, dragging on a deputy system for nearly five months—who’s responsible? The current administration didn’t appoint a successor, but instead sustained this inadequate placement for extensive periods, enabling situations like these to arise. Yesterday, Mr. Kim Jong-min, a former prosecutor, pointedly noted the acting head figure was essentially Minister Jeong Seong-ho. The inability to handle a deputy role burdens the organization without firm leadership. This situation magnifies that influence from above, especially when statements like ‘consider carefully’ feel like explicit pressure, burdening even non-official members like acting heads to succumb under duress.’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: That assertion seems exaggerated, and claiming a call with the deputy to be pressure falls outside acceptable logic. Statutorily, whether it’s the Minister or not, legal instructions must be formally documented, especially with specific investigations — which was absent in this circumstance, making claims of external influence dubious.’,
,
, ‘■ Kang Chan-ho: Thus, the implicit critique is towards Minister Jeong’s shrewdness.’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: Accepting hints of pressure without substantial evidence means interpreting subsiding acquiescence inaccurately.’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: With Minister Jeong Seong-ho absent here, it’s mainly perceived his direction was a careful suggestion rather than explicit directive – reports within the break implied the prosecution might appeal led to the cautious direction. If intent existed, customary formal communication would follow, as reiterated in the National Assembly yesterday.’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: It’s not just tradition, but a legal requirement.’,
,
, ‘□ Kim Jun-il: While legal frameworks allow the Minister to direct prosecution through the prosecutor general, interference in individual cases poses challenges pinpointing overarching boundaries. Current cases of appeal advisories without full intervention strategies still stir contention about discretionary boundaries.’,
,
, ‘■ Kang Chan-ho: Very true.’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: Small misunderstanding exists here.’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: Legally speaking?’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: The Minister of Justice holds wide jurisdiction for prosecutorial oversight, as seen with generic directives about increased drug crackdowns or involvement of anti-corruption divisions upon critical gaps. Though general directives allow verbal dissemination, the scope of direct interventions remains predominantly written access, avoiding misinterpretations in isolated cases as seen here.’,
,
, “◆ Kim Young-soo: Stack accordingly derives into extended political controversy cyclically, whereas National Assembly representative Jang Dong-hyuk averts all accountability upon President Lee Jae-myung, alleging a strategic non-appeal float manipulated under directions. Concurrently, political secretary Woo Sang-ho opposes labeling concerns, reiterating null presidential involvement with tangible gain. What say you?”,
,
, ‘■ Kang Chan-ho: Tangible engagement shouldn’t be definitively surmised, but public curiosity stirs naturally into suspicion. Woo Sang-ho’s stern declarations, despite organizational challenges, point towards hostile perspectives compounded by state reflections instead of agency assertions it seems. Also, irrespective of insightful official notes, policy impact remains untapped, lamentably broadcasting inconsistencies over holistic narratives and full incorporation.’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: Was there no practical benefit, as expressed earlier by Kim Yong-nam? Critic Kim Jun-il, your stance?’,
,
, ‘□ Kim Jun-il: Regarding the forfeiture of appeal?’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: Particularly, if societal advantages bypass Presidential advantage completely.’,
,
, ‘□ Kim Jun-il: When questions are complex, inspecting beneficiary lens works well. Here, direct beneficiaries appear to be Kim Man-bae and Nam, among others. Initial judgments marked no punitive recovery, now being definitive.’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: Indeed.’,
,
, ‘□ Kim Jun-il: However, concerning complex fee breakdowns of Kim Man-bae, exact figures can waver. Regardless of whether intricacies of process labor undertake evaluations, contesting effective benefits seems mismatched. Judicial rulings by appraisal, especially contrasting City Development’s influence versus non-involvement reflects distinct boundaries. Procuring more relieved amounts via the appeals definitely faces inherent obstacles. Regardless of deferral convenience, fulfilling obligations remains essential to widening asset recoupment rather than selection of passive outcomes. Woo Sang-ho elucidates similarly, stressing emotional dissonance echoing resolute discontentment over amassed fiscal diversions.’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: Misalignment surfaces within arguments questioning state-seized compensations versus victim-led civil recuperations. Assuming ‘victim agency’ as universal defaults extend misleading perspectives. These compensations facilitate victim outreach substantiated by juridical assertion. Simplifying structural enforcement beyond facile misreadings aids perceptual accuracy alongside systematic accountabilities.’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: Calculating 7.4 trillion warrants convergence on Minister Jeong indicating civil suits suffice, while underestimations resurface laments from legal practitioners on relinquished prosecutions.’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: Feasibility of civil actions remains unobstructed, though augmented complexities hinder straightforward realities.’,
,
, ‘■ Kang Chan-ho: Disfavor remains noticeable, as judicial precedence informs future civil claims effectively. Pervasive methodologies accentuate criminal foundations directing heightened civil adjustments counteracting stripped prosecutorial contrasts.’,
,
, ‘△ Kim Yong-nam: Primary themes spotlight exaggerated assumptions of predominant voluntariness, albeit prosecutorial accent lie within consistency dismissals indicating foundational resistance omitted circumstantially.’,
,
, ‘■ Kang Chan-ho: However, my reflection stems from verified thorough consultation contacts supporting discrete evaluations amidst organizational complexities clarify prosecutorial assessments within revealing historical dialogues absent fully verified procedural falsifications.’,
,
, ‘□ Kim Jun-il: Distilling event sequences highlights selective narratives meriting focus absent non-intervention moments. Opportunities encouraging non-stasis responses become reinforced amid enriched disciplinary appreciation against prosecution entities bearing conscious responsibility critiques broadened incrementally.’,
,
, ‘◆ Kim Young-soo: Wrapping segment three, we’ll return shortly with part four momentarily. Continuation forthcoming.’,
,