[Interview file] One year after the motherland crisis... Beliefs that have replaced judgment

On the morning of August 27, last year, a junior was in the office to prepare for a hearing on candidates for the Minister of Justice.

It was said that the candidate at the time of the motherland had not yet appeared in the office even though the rush hour had passed.

Many suspicions have already been raised regarding the candidate's family.

He was a candidate who had always come to work at the same time and actively revealed his position on suspicion and his feelings.

A junior reporter said that rumors that something might have happened on the scene were circulating, and the prosecution presumed that the prosecution had been seized and searched in relation to the suspicion of the candidate.

Going for seizure while preparing for a personnel hearing?

Is it even against a candidate for the Justice Minister who oversees the prosecution?

It didn't fit my common sense based on existing practices.

So it was.

Laughing over the assumptions of juniors, he assumed that he was interviewing with a specific media company.

It took less than an hour for this estimate to be broken.

"The candidate must be a confiscated search to remove the agreed suspicion".

A story came from the inside of the prosecutors' office that it would be a so-called go-stop for the prosecution's seizure and search.

There was also a story saying, "Is it possible that the No. 1 investigation by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol is related to a candidate for the Minister of Justice."

Looking back now, it's all funny, but the prosecution's search for seizure at that time was unexpected even inside the prosecution.

Shortly after the prosecution's investigation began, there was an opportunity to speak with prosecution official A.

I remember that it was before the candlelight rally to protect the motherland began in earnest, but A was a person who knew the background of the prosecution's investigation.

They asked why the prosecution was confiscated on August 27, during the preparation period for the hearing, and what was the background of the investigation.

It was at the time when'resistance to reform' was talked about as the background of the investigation, centered on the ruling party.

A's answer was this.

“I am well aware that there is a story that an investigation into the candidate for the Minister of Justice was initiated to prevent reform of the prosecution. But can you prevent the reform of the prosecution by investigating the candidate? Let's assume that the prosecutor's investigation may cause the candidate to fail. Would you like to stay still. Would you like to send a person as the minister who would drive the prosecution harder than the candidate. Nevertheless, I know that the investigation was only in order not to miss the time from the perspective of the investigation."

What is the point of view of the investigation?

Inside the prosecution, there was a saying that it was the learning effect of the Gukjeong Nongdan case.

At the time of the Gukjeong Nongdan incident, the intention was to avoid repeating the criticism that the case was kept silent, but later seized and searched.

There was also a story that the suspicion was due to the candidate for the Minister of Justice.

Several suspicions have already been raised, and the investigation was compelled, but it was analyzed that it was in a hurry because if the candidate took office as the head of the Ministry of Justice, the investigation could not be conducted properly.

These arguments are not resistance to the prosecution's reform, but rather that they hurried to seizure and search to properly investigate.

Just because the suspicion was raised, when was the prosecution investigating all the cases?

Hasn't it been criticized as a'political prosecution' for a so-called selective investigation?

This is why it is hard to believe the story of'it is just an investigation based on an investigation point of view'.

However, the criticism of the'political prosecution' was mainly the result of an excessive investigation of the dead power or the investigation in the direction the living power wanted.

In this respect, it is quite unusual to investigate the living power in the middle of the term, not at the end of the term.

This is why I think it is necessary to listen at least once, rather than just listen to A's story.

This is even more so given who came as the successor to former Minister Cho Kook and what was going on after that.

In addition, it seems necessary to refer to the story that prosecutor official B said at the same time.

"You started investigating candidates to prevent reform of the prosecution? It is difficult to agree. The candidate of the motherland did not try to reduce the power of the prosecution so far when he was a senior citizen of the Blue House. Many of the things that have been criticized as'political investigations' are special investigations, but special investigations are special. Wasn't it the father of the motherland to stipulate and guarantee the investigation, if it were to prevent reform, it would have been more effective for the prosecution to persuade the candidate rather than to investigate. In addition, the candidate is considered to be the real world of the regime. If I can persuade, who can say anything about the reform of the prosecution. What is the reason for the investigation nonetheless?"

Some see former Minister Cho Kook as a synonym for'prosecution reform', but Min Jeong-suk's move was far from the prosecution reform.

The essence of the prosecution reform was the reduction of the power concentrated on the prosecution.

In particular, as most of the investigations evaluated as'political investigations', such as the'Former President Roh Moo-hyun investigation', were derived from special investigations or direct investigations, there was a prospect or expectation that the Moon Jae-in administration would significantly restrict or abolish special investigations.

As a result of the prosecution's counterattack beyond the wave of reform through a special investigation, there was an experience in which the reform was aground.

However, it was the chief civil servant of the motherland who offered to guarantee the prosecution's special investigation (direct investigation).

It was during the time of the home country's chief civilian government that an additional post was added to the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office, which was evaluated as too large.

(Reference [Reporting File]'Reduction of Special Prosecutor's Office' Wrong then, right now?)

In May this year, SBS reported on the prosecution's investigation into Shillazen.

(Reference [8News]Sillazen Moon Eun-sang took over without his own money to the self-government board) It was a time when the press was dominated.

The SBS report stated that the charges of CEO Moon were related to the listing of the stock, not that of using undisclosed information.

It also included that the prosecution has detected and investigated various problems in the process of listing, and that former Shillazen executives that the prosecution suspected of having an accomplice relationship with Moon were arrested.

Since the allegations received by Moon are related to the listing process, not personal corruption after listing, it was the intent that depending on the results of the investigation, the eligibility of Sillagen to be listed may be a problem.

After the report, I received an e-mail from a reader who introduced him as a shareholder of Shillazen.

The contents were protesting that the stock value of Shillazen was damaged by the SBS report.

For various reasons, they argued that the listing of Shillazen was legal.

It was difficult to agree with most of the evidences presented, but in front of one evidence, I couldn't find anything to answer.

'How much do you know CEO Eun-sang Moon? CEO Moon is an honest person','CEO Moon is a person who gave up the life of a dentist with guaranteed success and devoted himself to the development of treatment drugs for cancer patients','He is a person who devotes himself to research and devotes himself to health. How do you know about the listing process?, ``Shareholders trust President Moon Eun-sang,'' ``We want to believe in President Moon Eun-sang, who are guilty or not,'' and ``The prosecution is trying to kill CEO Moon to hide his internal secrets, but the media protects it. Shouldn't it be done?' Will you

make an economic judgment that directly affects your life with'belief in the individual'? I was speechless. If Moon is arrested or prosecuted, it may have been a mind to avoid the reality, thinking that the stock value of Shillazen, which had already crashed, would fall further. However, it also felt like a conviction that Moon should be a noble person who has never done anything illegal, or that everything that Moon does should be right.

prosecutor's background was talking about the background of the investigation into the former minister of the motherland, and the fact that the above case was suddenly brought up is one aspect of the pathological symptoms in our society caused by the motherland crisis. It is because of the thought that it may be. For someone, the story of prosecution officials A or B would not be worth it. For them, the situation of the motherland may have to be defined as'a coup by the prosecutors who took an innocent person hostage to prevent reform', or as'a scam of the red media in close contact with the prosecutors'. Information contrary to this belief may be lightly dismissed as'resistance or conspiracy of the reform object' or'fake news'.

This kind of thinking system was incorporated in the contents of the e-mail sent by Shillazen shareholders. Just as the narrative that'adult men robbed a house with only women and women for 11 hours' reinforced some people's beliefs about the situation in the motherland, Eun-sang Moon said,'I fell down during the second subpoena investigation due to a brutal prosecution investigation and was taken to the hospital.' They also showed a reinforcement of their faith in the country. Judgment should be made after acquiring various information, but it seems that a choice of information has been made to replace judgment and reinforce the belief by faith. As the area of ​​controversy turned into the realm of religion, is it the result of disturbing the thinking system? (If they were ordinary citizens who were unable to determine the procedures and scope one by one because they could not receive the assistance of a lawyer properly, how many hours would it have taken for the seizure and search? Is it easy to stop the investigation and return home after being summoned as a suspect and being investigated? The protection of human rights in the process should be further strengthened, but the previous narrative mobilized to reinforce beliefs seems to have been misused.)

The'former channel A reporter suspicion of attempted coercion' was invoked for the second time in the constitutional history of the Minister of Justice. This unprecedented incident in many contexts is a legacy of the motherland crisis. In some, this case is a'probate collusion case'. No, it should be. As with the regulations on'the situation of the motherland', the regulation on this case is not a controversy, but a conviction. Just as the so-called'anti-fatherland forces' gathered in reaction to the'the candlelight rally to protect the motherland', there seems to be an increasing number of people who think that the'former Channel A reporter case' should be a'categorical collusion case'. In the midst of this, it is being said that the prosecution's prosecution against those involved in the case of the former Channel A reporter depends not on evidence, but on the will of the investigation team. It is a bitter story that even the realm of investigation is becoming the realm of belief.

One year after the start of the motherland crisis. Most of the debate is being oxidized by being subsumed by the camp logic. The area of ​​controversy is gradually disappearing in blind thinking based on beliefs. The same goes for those who believed that rational debate was possible. This is a phenomenon I have never experienced. Will it be a little different around this time next year after the judgment on the first and second trials of the motherland situation? Could the gap between people be narrowed? Can those who split up face to face in a debate?

It doesn't seem likely. People who contributed to the triggering of the current symptoms, or those who could improve these symptoms, seem unlikely to change their attitudes. As the presidential election approaches in the twenties, more people will use the current situation politically. There are already a number of people who can enjoy commercial benefits only when the current situation continues or strengthens. Can the current situation be easily improved? In the future, the motherland situation is likely to be the subject of research as a crucial turning point that fundamentally changed the topography of various parts of our society.

(Photo = Yonhap News)