<Anchor> The



Democratic Party is raising their voice that the nomination of Justice Minister candidate Han Dong-hoon should be withdrawn and insisting that it be thoroughly verified at the hearing.

At the personnel hearing, the so-called 'prosecution collusion' and 'prosecution instigation' against a candidate are likely to be the main issues.



By Son Hyeong-an, staff reporter.



<Reporter> The



Democratic Party's leadership has aimed at Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon as the top priority.



[Park Hong-geun / Democratic Party floor leader: This is a dangerous harbinger of state government nongdan.

It must be cut cleanly before it becomes a lump of cancer.]



At the hearing, it seems that the most controversial issue at the hearing is the 'prosecution adhesion' that has been holding a candidate's ankles for two years.



There is a suspicion that a candidate and a channel A reporter colluded to dig up information about the corruption of passport officials. One candidate was eventually acquitted, but he did not disclose the iPhone cell phone password, which is the key evidence, saying that it is the right of the suspect.



Another point to watch is the allegation that Prosecutor Son Jun-seong submitted an accusation letter from a feminist politician to the United Future Party ahead of the general election last year.



The Air Traffic Service still sees a candidate as a suspect, and the possibility that informant Jo Seong-eun will appear as a witness at the hearing and make a surprise revelation is a variable.



People's Power has declared all-out cover for one candidate.



[Lee Jun-seok / Representative of People's Power: 'The First Sword of Joseon'

As a public official in the Yoon Seok-yeol government, not a prosecutor who was evaluated as a

.]



As of this year, one candidate reported about 3.937 billion won including real estate as property.



The recent increase in the rent of an apartment given to jeonse by more than 40% or 530 million won in one year is controversial at the hearing.



One candidate explained that it was a normal transaction in which the deposit was set according to the market price in agreement with the lessee, and there was no dispute between the parties to the transaction.

Keywords: