Cho Kuk, former leader of the Rebuilding Korea Party, and Rep. Kim Nam-hee of the Democratic Party of Korea continued their dispute over a prosecution reform bill for a second day. Cho claimed that a proposed revision to the Criminal Procedure Act pushed by Kim contained provisions that would effectively revive prosecutors' authority to direct investigations, while Kim countered head-on, calling it "the spread of false information."
In a Facebook post on the 25th, Cho argued, "The provisions (reviving investigation command authority) were not in the bill that Rep. Kim Nam-hee registered on the legislative information system and then withdrew, but they were included in the bill for which she requested co-sponsorship from fellow Democratic Party lawmakers."
He continued, "I received this through multiple Democratic Party lawmakers and staff members, read the content, and was appalled, which is why I criticized it." He then asked, "I ask Rep. Kim. Was there no provision to establish a 'Joint Response Headquarters' in the bill she posted when requesting participation in co-sponsorship?" He added, "If verification of the authenticity of the bill I received is needed, I will disclose it at any time."
Earlier, in a Facebook post the previous day, Cho claimed, "Democratic Party lawmakers are trying to establish a 'Joint Response Headquarters' within the Public Prosecution Office to revive prosecutors' authority to direct investigations, which was abolished during the Moon Jae-in administration." He said, "This means giving prosecutors at the Public Prosecution Office directing and supervising authority instead of independent investigative authority." He said, "This would turn the barely established cooperative relationship between prosecutors and police back into a hierarchical one," referring to Article 195-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act revision that Kim had introduced as the lead sponsor.
The materials Cho also disclosed contained content to the effect that "the head of the Joint Response Headquarters appointed by the prosecutor general can receive investigators dispatched from the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and direct and supervise them." Cho claimed this was Kim's Criminal Procedure Act revision.
In response, Kim said in a Facebook post the same day, "Professor Cho Kuk, do not state false information, and check the content on the legislative information system." She rebutted, "That content is not in the bill I introduced. I am curious who gave you the wrong information."
Kim criticized, "After spreading false information claiming it was a bill I co-sponsored, and then when it turns out not to be, without revealing where, from whom, or what information he obtained, he says 'it existed before.'" She added, "He himself has admitted that it was not the final bill and that he spread false information."
She continued, "Does spreading false information without even checking the content of the proposal, and then saying 'it was a previous version,' make your fault disappear?" she asked. "Spilled water cannot be gathered back. I urge him to apologize, even now, for speaking wrongly without fact-checking." She added, "If he wants to be more active in the realm of politics, I recommend that he fact-check before speaking in the future."
