On the 14th, Min Kyung-ryong, the chief of police, was present at the National Assembly Administration and Security Committee. There was a question about the suspicion of Kim Hak-soo's lending to former minister Lee, and there were also questions related to the so-called 'Kim-kyo's video'. "I got it in May (2013) because it is clear by the naked eye, so I sent it to the prosecution that it was the same person (Kim Hak-soo's former lieutenant) without any request for an appraisal," Lee said.

Rep. Kim Min-kee, who had been questioning Min Chung's answer, continued to question the fact that the person in the video was a prosecutor who had not been charged with Kim's vice-minister's clearance. Opinion and media coverage were the same. Interest is gathering in videos, among them men in the video. Are the officials of the prosecution team in the past confused by this situation? It is highly unlikely. The target is not accurate.

● The question of Kim Hak-soo's suspicions of former ministerial hospitality has attracted the target

In 2004, the Athens Olympic men's 50m rifle 3 posture finals. Emmons of the United States which ran first place until the ninth round. It was called the strongest of the event. The last round where I was able to confirm the gold medal by shooting more than one point. Emmons shot a close-range of 10.6 points. However, the end result is the lowest. He shot the target of a side player who is not his target.

Of course, it is an important issue. Especially, the second investigation of the prosecution has a very important meaning. The visual destructive power of the video is also great. However, it is another matter that the male in the video is Kim Hak-in, so the suspicion of sexual violence is proved. This is because Kim Hak - sik, the former vice minister, was not accused of sexual assault and the timing of filming was inconsistent. "Why the male in the video is Kim Hak-in, why is he not suspected" is aimed at the wrong target.

On July 18, 2013, the police announced the results of an investigation into allegations of so-called "Kim Hak-seong hospitality". Police have sent two special rape charges to the former vice minister of Kim Hak - There were references to the video in question. According to the police, the video of the problem was estimated to be from July to August 2006, with four different images of the same situation. Two crimes of special rape charges were identified, one in April and one in May 2007 and one in March and April 2008. As a result of the police investigation, it was not directly connected with the case of the crime suspect point of the problem video.

● "The man in the video is Kim Hak-ki's" ≠ "

The same was true of the prosecution's announcement of the results of the first investigation. At the time, an official of the investigation team refrained from mentioning who was the subject of the video, but said the video was not related to Kim's crime charges. According to police estimates, the timing of the special rape charges and the time of filming are different, and the video is not evidence of direct evidence of special rape charges.

Could it be that they were aware of the charges other than the alleged crimes of the police based on the video? At that time, the investigation team had to confirm the identity of the woman in the video for the allegation, and based on it, they should be aware of the new allegation, but the identity of the woman in the video was not specified.

At the time of the first investigation, some of the reasons for the abandonment of charges related to sexual assault charges against Kim Hak-a's former vice minister are not known to be "unidentified men in the video" but "women in the video are not specified." "Why the man in the video was convinced that the police was former vice minister of Kim Hak-soon," the prosecutor's office did not charge him, "and the question" is not the core video? "Is shooting arrows at the wrong target. At that time, the investigating team is asking questions that are easy to excuse.

Then how about when the second prosecutor's investigation, in which a woman named herself appeared in the video, appeared. An official of the second investigation team said that it was difficult to confirm that the woman was a woman appearing in the video, and that the woman's statement had changed several times and that her statement was unreliable. The woman's face does not appear in the video of the problem, but it is difficult to prove the suspicion by specifying the woman in the video by the woman's claim alone. Again, it did not matter whether the male appearing in the video was Kim's former vice minister or not.

● Exact questions require accurate answers

So, what question should we ask in the case of 'Kim Hak-soo's suspicion of former vice ministerial hospitality,' which is still suspected by the police investigation and the two prosecution's investigation. The question is, and the objects confirmed by the Supreme Prosecutors 'Office' s past investigation team can be found in past prosecution investigation reports.

At the time of the first investigation, the prosecution did not conduct a seizure search for the former vice minister's residence. Should not Kim have verified the story of former vice minister Kim, through a search for a cell phone, in case he insists that he does not know any woman who claims to be a victim of special rape charges. We should have checked the availability of so-called sex entertainment through confidential search. However, the prosecution did not feel the necessity, he said at the time of the announcement of the investigation results in 2013.

(Reporter) Is it not usually when you search for residence or office seizure whether you are a prime suspect?

(Prosecutors) When a bribe is taken as an example, a donor's statement and a source of funding are sufficient. After the evidence is obtained, a warrant for confiscation is issued. Before that, the search warrant does not come out well.

(Reporter) Do you think that the police and the investigation of the reference persons did not have a basis for the search warrant?

(The prosecution official) Yes.

● Why did not Kim Kim's seizure of former vice minister

The prosecution heard the result of police investigation as one of the reasons that it did not feel the necessity of seizure. But I wonder if I could trust the results of the police investigation. The possibility of Cheong Wa Dae intervention in police investigations has already been raised in March 2013, when police investigations are in full swing. At the time, SBS reported that a member of the Cheong Wa Dae ministry of the Cheong Wa Dae asked for a video forensic record of a former vice minister of Kim Hak Hak to visit the National Assembly.

▶ [Independent] "Analysis result is different" ... Controversy over the intervention of Chung Chung Chung (SBS 8 News, March 23, 2013)

The prosecution needed to reexamine the investigation results of the police at the origin, as suspicions were raised due to the suspicion of suspicious interrogation of the presidential police interrogation. However, it was the result of the police investigation that the prosecution was one of the reasons why the prosecutor did not investigate Kim 's former vice minister. The prosecution, which has been suspected of allegedly involved in the special rape charges, has taken a different position in relation to the search for seizures. In the end, both the police investigation and the investigation of the prosecution did not search the seizure of former vice minister Kim, but it is a question that can be questioned whether there is a will to investigate.

● There was no other public official involved in Kim's former vice minister

Another question that needs to be raised in relation to Kim Hak - soo 's allegations about former lending is that there were no other senior officials involved in the allegations. In the early days of the investigation, it was called the "suspicion of sex service of senior officials", and the names of other officials other than Kim Hak-soo were also named. However, from time to time, the case was named 'Kim Hak-soo' as a suspicion of former ministerial hospitality, and the senior official was in fact only one former minister of Kim Hak-soo. What is the reason. Maybe there was concealment to prevent the spread of suspicions about sexual entertaining.

The context in which these suspicions are added has recently been revealed. The prosecutor's office said that 30,000 digital documents were not sent to the prosecution. Police said they sent all the necessary evidence on a CD and destroyed the evidence that was not directly related to the investigation. However, the investigation team said that the CD that the prosecution sent had no photographs or video files, and it is difficult to find evidence on which the police dismissed the evidence. The investigative team is said to have tried to find out whether other public officials appeared in the digital data, but it was impossible because there was no data. Why did not the data be sent? And why did not the prosecutor direct the data?

● Why was the statement of the women claiming the damage not accepted?

Finally, the most important question to ask is, "Why are not women's statements asserting that they are victims?" The prosecution's first press release expresses several expressions that it is hard to believe the statements of the women claiming the damage. In addition, there are few expressions that force victimism that it is hard to see it as a behavior of someone who has been victimized by rape. The woman in the video said she was herself, and the second reason for the alleged damage was the lack of credibility of the alleged victim. Why did the prosecution not accept the claim of the victimized woman?

If you hit the wrong target, no matter how you hit it, you will not score. 'Why is the man in the video in question a former vice minister of Kim Hak-hee?' This question may be a clear claim to the destructive power of the video, but it is hard to be a precise question. Rather, it can be a good excuse. If the question is correct, you can get the correct answer. And so it can be exactly rage.