Three more cases reported in addition to the India trip,
Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News,
, ‘The Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office has begun investigating the complainant in the suspicion of former President Moon Jae-in’s wife Kim Jung-sook’s ‘lavish India trip’.’,
,
, ‘On the morning of the 19th, the Criminal Department 2 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office (headed by Jo Ara) started the investigation by calling in Lee Jong-bae, a member of the main opposition party in Seoul, as the complainant. The lawmaker who appeared at the entrance of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho-gu at 9:20 a.m. on this day claimed, “The Taj Mahal travel incident involving Kim, the First Lady, is a major crime where precious taxpayer money was unlawfully spent like blood, unlike other First Lady suspicions.”‘,
,
, ‘Last December, the lawmaker filed a complaint against Kim, accusing her of abuse of power, obstruction of rights, and causing financial loss to the country under the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes. In addition to the suspicion of the India trip, Kim was also accused of the suspicion of receiving luxury jackets and allegations of swimming lessons through presidential bodyguards. On this day, the lawmaker also stated that he would undergo the complainant investigation for the three cases he reported.’,
,
, ‘Kim’s side maintains that there is no problem. Former President Moon released a statement on the 5th, saying that Kim did not wish to visit India, but the Indian side had hoped for Moon’s visit, and as a result of discussions, Kim went to India. Kim recently filed a criminal complaint against Rep. Bae Hyun-jin of the main opposition party who raised suspicions related to this case.’,
,
, ‘Meanwhile, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office recently reassigned the case of Kim Jung-sook from the Criminal Department 1 (headed by Kim Seung-ho) to the Criminal Department 2. They have also assigned one prosecutor from the Fair Trade Investigation Unit under the supervision of the vice chief prosecutor to this case.’,
,
,