Power and capital at the edge of the judiciary: from suspicions of fraud in the entertainment industry to the Jamsil protests and risks to the presidential office > News

Piark Group Chairman Cha Ga-won, who was known as a big name in the entertainment industry, faced a huge reef of fraud charges worth 30 billion won. The police believe that in the process of signing contracts with several companies, including Nomus, using the intellectual property rights of his celebrities as collateral, he entered into a double contract while hiding existing contracts that had already been signed, stole 24.2 billion won in advance money, and then did not carry out the business. The situation is escalating as the charge of signing a contract to rent a house with an acquaintance and disappearing after taking a deposit of 5.4 billion won is added. Representative Cha's side claims that this investigation is a retaliatory investigation planned during a hostile takeover and acquisition, and is countering that there was procedural illegality in the police search and seizure process. However, the police have already shown confidence in proving the charges through two suspect investigations and analysis of seized materials, and are strongly expressing the need for a detention investigation.

Meanwhile, the area around the Jamsil polling center in Seoul has emerged as the center of a new conflict where citizens' protests and police power clash. This protest, triggered by a shortage of ballot papers for the June 3 local elections, initially took the form of a peaceful expression of opinion demanding guaranteed suffrage, but the situation gradually worsened with illegal acts such as searching the belongings of the national youth team, assaulting reporters, and insulting the police. Park Jeong-bo, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency chief, sent a strong warning message in response to this, saying, “Even simple participants can be put to shame if they are punished as accomplices.” The police are currently investigating 15 cases, and are maintaining their stance that they will pursue those who actively participated to the end by applying special charges of coercion and obstruction of business. This has once again brought to the surface the age-old challenge of our society: how far the freedom of assembly and demonstration guaranteed by the Constitution can be compatible with the maintenance of public order.

Suspicions surrounding the highest level of power are also entering the stage of supplementary judicial investigation, increasing tensions. Regarding the so-called 'suspicion of a party on a naval ship', the prosecution requested a supplementary investigation from the police, and accordingly, the National Police Agency's Special Investigation Headquarters decided to look again into whether Ms. Kim Kun-hee was involved in the crime. As the police, who had in the past decided not to forward the case due to insufficient evidence, begin a reinvestigation under the direction of the prosecution, the key issue is expected to become again the question of whose orders the private use of military assets and excessive protocol orders using the VIP house were carried out. In addition to allegations of abuse of power by former head of the National Security Service Kim Yong-hyun and others, the question of how transparently this reinvestigation will be able to reveal the operational status of the Presidential Security Service and abuse of power issues is emerging as a topic of national interest.

The common thread that runs through these three incidents is ‘the opacity of power and capital.’ Representative Chawon's case shows how the greed of capital can abuse contractual relationships, the Jamsil protests reflect the social chaos that occurs when collective anger goes beyond the bounds of the law, and the suspicion of a party on a naval ship reflects how national public power and security systems can be corrupted by private interests. Although the police declare a principled response to each incident, there are still concerns about human rights violations and overreaction during the investigation process. Investigative agencies must maintain a stricter and more objective attitude than ever before in order to properly establish the foundation of the rule of law, and citizens must observe the essence of the situation with cool-headed reason rather than an emotional response until a judicial conclusion is reached.