Translating into Русский. The English version is shown until it is ready.
Blue House and Cho Kuk dispute his past stance on prosecutors' supplementary probes
Версия 2: New reports add the sequence behind the dispute — President Lee Jae-myung's October 5 post on X, a Blue House press notice citing a 2025 YouTube remark by Cho, and a second party commentary — as well as Cho calling the argument over his position consumptive at a National Assembly forum and an outlet reporting that the ruling camp's conflict is spreading.
Коротко
The Blue House cited past remarks by Cho Kuk, head of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party's innovation policy institute, indicating he had accepted that prosecutors could conduct supplementary investigations under conditions. Cho replied on Facebook on October 6 that this was his personal position and that, after the party decided on full abolition, he has held that prosecutors' right to request supplementary investigation should be strengthened. His party accused the Blue House of ignoring the context of his remarks, and Chosun Ilbo reported Cho calling the argument over his position consumptive.
Читать полностью 3 мин чтения
The Blue House cited past remarks by Cho Kuk, head of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party's innovation policy institute, to question his position on whether prosecutors should have the right to conduct supplementary investigations, according to Yonhap, Maeil Business and Hankook Ilbo. Cho responded with a rebuttal on Facebook on October 6. The Korea Economic Daily headlined the same sequence, saying the Blue House brought up Cho's past remarks and Cho replied that this was only a personal view while the party line is full abolition. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]
In the post, Cho said it had been his personal position that prosecutors' supplementary investigation right could be recognised exceptionally, limited to what he described as judicial emergencies. Maeil Business and Hankook Ilbo reported that he cited cases such as an imminent statute of limitations or a judicial police officer refusing a supplementary investigation request three or more times without just cause. Cho said that after the party line was decided as full abolition, he maintained that prosecutors' right to request supplementary investigation should be further strengthened and systematised. He added that politicians, lawyers and legal scholars had held a range of views and argued sharply over whether and how far to recognise the right, but that the National Assembly's decision had settled it, and that it is now time for everyone to work together so the system takes root under the enacted law. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
The Cho Kuk Innovation Party rejected the Blue House's framing. Spokesperson Lim Myung-hee said in a commentary that Cho has kept a consistent position: prosecutors' direct supplementary investigation right should in principle be fully abolished, and the criminal justice system should be fundamentally reorganised around the right to request supplementary investigation. She said his reference to exceptional supplementary investigation was likewise confined to extreme emergencies, and that he has repeatedly stressed not a single inch of supplementary investigation right should be permitted if a precise design of the request right can replace it. Lim said the party is deeply concerned that the Blue House has taken political action to carry through political intentions, and urged it to refrain from undermining the history and foundation of prosecution reform, which she described as a historical product and an achievement made by the public. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
According to Hankook Ilbo, President Lee Jae-myung wrote on X on October 5 that the Cho Kuk Innovation Party had proposed placing an investigation agency and a prosecution agency inside the Justice Ministry, along with giving the prosecution agency a supplementary investigation right. The outlet said the party line is full abolition of prosecutors' direct supplementary investigation right, keeping only the right to request police supplementary investigation. After the party issued a commentary in rebuttal, the Blue House put up a press notice saying Cho had spoken of recognising supplementary investigation on a YouTube show on August 29, 2025, the outlet reported. Hankook Ilbo described the exchange between the Blue House and the party as escalating, and said the party issued a second commentary on the morning of October 6 asking what help the framing gave to state affairs and the president. [ 4 ]
Chosun Ilbo reported that Cho, speaking at a forum on resolving inequality hosted by the innovation policy institute at the National Assembly on October 6, said there had been much discussion over the scope of the supplementary investigation right but that the National Assembly had passed the law and the matter was over, and that he did not understand arguments over whether his old position had changed, which he called a consumptive debate. Kukmin Ilbo headlined the matter as a spread of conflict over prosecution reform within the ruling camp and a dispute over the truth of Cho's recognition of supplementary investigation. [ 5 , 6 ]
Почему это важно
The exchange shows friction inside South Korea's ruling camp over how the recently passed prosecution reform should be implemented, with the presidential office and a minor party trading interpretations of one politician's past positions. The documents say parliament has already settled the matter, so the practical effect turns on how the enacted law is put into practice.
Ключевые факты
- The Blue House cited Cho Kuk's past remarks to question his position on whether prosecutors should have the right to conduct supplementary investigations. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]
- Cho Kuk, head of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party's innovation policy institute, said on Facebook on October 6 that recognising prosecutors' supplementary investigation right in judicial emergencies was his personal position. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- Cho said that after the party line was decided as full abolition, he held that prosecutors' right to request supplementary investigation should be further strengthened and systematised. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- Cho cited cases such as an imminent statute of limitations or a judicial police officer refusing a supplementary investigation request three or more times without just cause as examples of a judicial emergency. [ 3 , 4 ]
- Cho Kuk Innovation Party spokesperson Lim Myung-hee said the Blue House ignored the context of Cho's remarks and that the party is deeply concerned about the Blue House taking political action to push through political intentions. [ 1 , 3 ]
- Hankook Ilbo reported that the Blue House put up a press notice saying Cho had spoken of recognising supplementary investigation on a YouTube show on August 29, 2025, after President Lee Jae-myung posted on X on October 5 about the party's prosecution reform proposals. [ 4 ]
- Chosun Ilbo reported Cho saying at a National Assembly forum that the National Assembly had passed the law and the matter was over, and that arguments over whether his old position had changed were consumptive. [ 5 ]
Подтверждено несколькими источниками
- The Blue House cited Cho Kuk's past remarks to question his position on whether prosecutors should have the right to conduct supplementary investigations. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]
- Cho Kuk stated on Facebook on October 6 that recognition of prosecutors' supplementary investigation right in exceptional judicial emergencies was his personal position, and that after the party line of full abolition he backed strengthening the right to request supplementary investigation. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- The Cho Kuk Innovation Party publicly rejected the Blue House's framing, saying the context of Cho's remarks was ignored. [ 1 , 3 ]
- Cho cited an imminent statute of limitations or a judicial police officer refusing supplementary investigation requests three or more times without just cause as examples of a judicial emergency. [ 3 , 4 ]
Пока неясно
- The exact wording and form of the Blue House's statement citing Cho's past remarks. Yonhap and Maeil Business describe the point without quoting a Blue House statement or naming an official; only Hankook Ilbo describes a press notice, citing a 2025 YouTube appearance.
- When the Blue House first raised Cho's past remarks. Maeil Business says only that the Blue House acted before Cho's October 6 post; no date or time is given by that outlet.
- Whether Cho's position changed over time. The Blue House's reference to his past remarks implies a shift, while Cho and his party say his position has been consistent; the documents present the two accounts without resolving them.
- The content and schedule of the enacted prosecution reform law. The documents say the National Assembly decided the matter and refer to an enacted law, but give no details of the legislation.
- Kukmin Ilbo's detailed coverage of the dispute. Only the outlet's headline is available; the document carries no article text or summary.
- The Korea Economic Daily's detailed coverage of this event. The outlet's article text concerns unrelated stories, so only its headline addresses the exchange.
Что пишут местные СМИ
Хронология, местное время
- Cho Kuk says on a YouTube show that supplementary investigation should be recognised, according to a Blue House press notice cited by Hankook Ilbo. [ 4 ]
- President Lee Jae-myung writes on X that the Cho Kuk Innovation Party proposed investigation and prosecution agencies within the Justice Ministry, along with a supplementary investigation right for the prosecution agency. Date given as October 5; no time stated. [ 4 ]
- Yonhap publishes its report on Cho Kuk's rebuttal and the Cho Kuk Innovation Party's response. [ 1 ]
- The Korea Economic Daily publishes a report headlined on the Blue House raising Cho's past remarks and Cho saying it was a personal view while the party line is full abolition. [ 2 ]
- Maeil Business publishes its report detailing Cho's Facebook post, his examples of a judicial emergency and the party's reaction. [ 3 ]
- Hankook Ilbo publishes its report reconstructing the sequence of the president's post, the party's rebuttal and the Blue House press notice. [ 4 ]
- Chosun Ilbo publishes a report on Cho saying the argument over whether his position changed is consumptive. [ 5 ]
- Kukmin Ilbo publishes a report headlined on the ruling camp's prosecution reform conflict spreading and the dispute over Cho's recognition of supplementary investigation. [ 6 ]