“In an unprecedented act in constitutional history”
On the 13th, Kim Moon-soo, a candidate for the People’s Power Party leader, criticized the decision to detain former President Yoon Seok-yeol’s wife, Kim Keon-hee, stating, “Blinded by political revenge, national dignity is disregarded.”
During a party members’ meeting at the People’s Power Office in Buk-gu, Pohang City, Gyeongbuk, on the 11th, Kim Moon-soo, the candidate for party leadership, made a statement saying, “An unprecedented tyranny in constitutional history has occurred.” He expressed his view that the special prosecution involving Lee Jae-myung detained both a former president and his wife simultaneously, labeling it as an atrocity. He remarked how the couple Jo Kuk and Jung Kyung-shim were released only for a former president and his wife to be immediately detained.
He criticized that “President Lee Jae-myung’s five trials have all been halted, putting him above the law.”
Kim added, “How long can the dance of power continue? It won’t be long before the people’s anger will rise like wildfire and consume this tyranny.”
Previously, Kim was detained due to charges including stock price manipulation and interference in candidate nominations, marking the first time in constitutional history that a former presidential couple was detained simultaneously.
Judge Jeong Jae-wook of the Seoul Central District Court issued the arrest warrant on the night of the 12th for Kim, who is suspected of violating the Capital Markets Act, the Political Funds Act, and special crime aggravated punishment regulations. The court cited the risk of evidence destruction as the reason for issuing the warrant. The prosecution had previously asserted that the charges related to Kim’s involvement in the Deutsche Motors stock manipulation and other crimes were substantially substantiated, filing for an arrest warrant.
The arrest pre-examination began around 10:10 AM and lasted approximately four hours and 25 minutes until 2:35 PM, excluding a five-minute recess and without any breaks for lunch or rest.
The special prosecution submitted a pre-arrest warrant application of 22 pages and a detention opinion statement of 572 pages to the court on the 7th, and additionally a 276-page opinion. During the morning, using a PowerPoint presentation, they thoroughly explained to the court the necessity of Kim’s detention.
It is reported that the special prosecution pointed out Kim’s refusal to provide the password to confiscated phones and her lack of cooperation with the investigation. They also suggested concerns of potential coordination of testimonies with former presidential aides and the risk of fleeing under the guise of hospital admission as reasons for detention.
In particular, the special prosecution used a so-called “NATO necklace,” allegedly gifted to Kim by Seong Hee Construction, in court as evidence of her changing statements. This necklace, made by Van Cleef & Arpels and priced at 60 million won, caused a controversy when Kim wore it to a 2022 NATO tour without declaring it as an asset.
Initially, the presidential office explained the necklace as borrowed from an acquaintance; however, during prosecution investigations, Kim’s side changed the statement, claiming it was counterfeit. As the necklace was later found during a special prosecution’s raid at the home of a relative of Kim’s brother, her side explained it was a counterfeit bought 20 years ago for her mother during a trip to Hong Kong.
The special prosecution highlighted in the examination, “Despite receiving the necklace from Seong Hee Construction and wearing it during the tour, Kim claimed during the special prosecution investigation that it was a counterfeit product purchased 20 years ago.” They indicated Kim was not sincerely cooperating with the investigation, with her false statements reinforcing the risk of evidence destruction.
It is reported that Kim’s legal team, labeling the matter as a “separate case,” reacted against these claims, bringing along lawyers Choi Ji-woo and Yoo Jeong-hwa and preparing an 80-page PPT presentation to counter the special prosecution’s assertions. There was little change in their stance concerning the charges applied.
Regarding the Deutsche Motors stock manipulation suspicion, Kim claimed she was unaware of the stock manipulation in advance, and in terms of allegations of candidate nomination interference, they argued that it was not within the president’s duties, thus the charges do not hold.
However, the court sided with the special prosecution. The decision seems to consider the testimony and evidence proving the charges, Kim’s complete denial, and the inconsistency in Kim’s testimonies, particularly concerning the necklace introduced as evidence.