A major controversy has unfolded around the recent questioning of first lady Kim Keon Hee by prosecutors, who are examining allegations that she received a Christian Dior bag from a Korean American pastor and engaged in stock manipulation. The Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office disclosed on Sunday that Kim was interrogated at a confidential location for security purposes. This development marks the first instance of an incumbent first lady facing such an inquiry by prosecutors. The long-delayed investigation, which had been postponed since April 2020, has intensified concerns over the fairness and conduct of the prosecutors in the case.

The role of prosecutors cannot be overemphasized, especially at a time when the nation is grappling with crucial issues surrounding the first lady. It is imperative that they carry out a thorough and impartial investigation to completely uncover the truth without bias or favoritism. Probes should abide by proper protocols and procedures to maintain public trust and u
phold the rule of law.

However, prosecutors failed to conduct a search-and-seizure operation against Kim and the presidential office before interrogating her, a decision seen by many as a form of special treatment. This lapse allowed Kim to evade media scrutiny during the investigation.

It is also unprecedented and improper for the interrogation to occur outside the prosecution building, contradicting Prosecutor General Lee One-seok’s declaration that “there would be no exception, special treatment or sanctuary before the law.” Yet such actions undeniably suggest preferential treatment for Kim. Wary of the public criticism, the chief prosecutor said Monday he felt sorry for the prosecutors violating the rules in investigating Kim and will determine whether or not he will resign.

The prosecution said they questioned Kim for about 11 hours and 50 minutes from 1:30 p.m. Saturday until 1:20 a.m. Sunday. But considering time for meals, resting and reviewing materials, this duration seems insufficient for addres
sing two separate cases. This raises further doubts about the thoroughness and fairness of the investigation.

What matters most is the fact that the Seoul District Prosecutors’ Office head Lee Chang-soo did not report the case to the prosecutor general, who allegedly was furious after finding out what had happened. The breach of hierarchical norm and rules is alarming, especially since Yoon appointed Lee Chang-soo, who has been a close confidant, without discussing the matter with the current prosecutor general, highlighting a disregard for established procedures.

In this vein, Yoon cannot deflect criticism for infringing upon basic rules in appointing major prosecutors. The main opposition Democratic Party of Korea vehemently condemned the prosecution’s efforts to obstruct the National Assembly’s plan to have Kim and her mother appear before a hearing, a key move in the process of impeaching the beleaguered president.

Earlier, a court acknowledged the first lady’s involvement in the stock manipulation sca
ndal, noting that at least three of her accounts were used to fabricate share prices, which contributed to the conviction of former Deutsch Motors Chairman Kwon Oh-soo. The court also recognized that her accounts were used in a second attempt at manipulation around October 2010.

Despite allegations of political maneuvering by a pro-North Korean liberal pastor, it is totally inappropriate for Kim to have received the luxury bag. Even candidates for leaders of the ruling People Power Party are calling on Kim to offer an apology for receiving the bag, albeit belatedly.

The prosecutors deserve criticism for failing to rigorously investigate the case involving Kim. The current probe is a kind of formality wary of the growing negative public opinion. Many believe invoking a special counsel is the only way to shed light on the various suspicions.

In February, Yoon vowed to establish an office dedicated to managing affairs related to the president’s family members, including the first lady. However, there has been
no tangible progress on that promise. This inaction may cause the public to perceive the head of state as unresponsive and indifferent to their concerns. It is imperative for the administration to address these issues with transparency and impartiality in order to restore public confidence in the judicial process.

Source: Yonhap News Agency