According to the Legislative Research Office on the 21st, regarding a statement made by the opposition party members of the National Assembly’s Science, Technology, Information, Broadcasting, and Communications Committee (STIBCC) who lodged a complaint against Acting Chairman of the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) Kim Tae-kyu, saying that they will sue those who accused themselves, the interpretation was made that “it is impossible for a member to sue themselves.”
The Legislative Research Office stated, “It seems impossible to sue a member who participated in the accusation decisions as a witness for the defendant, due to the exemption privilege stipulated in Article 45 of the Constitution,” in connection with the recent inquiry by opposition member of the STIBCC, Hwang Jeong-ah of the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Legislative Research Office added, “It is also difficult to find cases where the accused sued a member of the National Assembly after being accused as a witness at the standing committee level.”
Earlier on the 14th, the STIBCC of the National Assembly passed a resolution led by the opposition, accusing Acting Chairman Kim of violating the National Assembly Advancement and Immunity Act for refusing to answer key questions at the “Broadcast Media Domination 2nd Inquiry.”
In response, Acting Chairman Kim mentioned in a press conference on the 19th, “If an accusation against me is made, I will sue the members who participated in the resolution to receive judgments from the prosecution and the court.”
This decision to sue the members of the STIBCC who participated in the resolution was made because being accused of a serious crime and abuse of power makes it difficult to be covered by the exemption privilege.
Representative Hwang criticized, “The legal interpretation of former judge Kim Tae-kyu’s actions as the acting chairman is filled with arrogance and conceit that goes beyond legal common sense.” She added, “The reason for engaging in such unreasonable behavior is likely to cover up the illegal appointment process of the public broadcasting directors for the purpose of dominating the broadcast.”
Moreover, she stated, “Even if they keep talking about suing, it will be difficult to escape judgment for their illegal actions.”