What is truth covered by controversy over former defense minister’s departure to Australia?

South Korea‘s Ambassador to Australia Lee Jong-seop, who is under investigation for allegedly exerting undue influence in the martyrdom of Marine Corps Cpl. Chae Mo Chae, returned to Incheon International Airport on Wednesday. The ambassador’s return comes 11 days after he left the country to attend a meeting of heads of major defense cooperation missions starting on March 25. By Cho Tae-hyung

Former Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup, who has been appointed as ambassador to Australia, has become a political hot potato. Since his escape to Australia as a suspect has emerged as a negative factor in the upcoming general election, the ruling camp has been trying to calm the controversy, saying that Lee's departure will not affect an investigation conducted by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). If Lee “voluntarily returns home” or responds “sincerely” to the CIO’s summons, will there be no problem?

Lee was accused of abuse of his official authority and interference with the exercise of rights after being suspected of exerting external pressure on the Marine Corps’ investigation into the death of Corporal Chae Su-geun. The Ministry of National Defense and the Marine Corps argue that the Defense Minister has the responsibility and authority to direct and oversee the Marine Corps’ investigation team. However, if the Defense Minister acted as a liaison between the Presidential office and the Marine Corps, in other words, if the minister was involved in the Marine Corps’ investigation according to the presidential office's political decisions and instructions, not his own judgment, that makes all the difference.

On July 30 last year, Lee approved the report after receiving a report on the conclusion of the Marine Corps’ investigation team and the timing of the transfer to the police. Later that evening, the National Security Office of the Presidential Office received press briefing materials containing the investigation team's conclusions and said, "You should not tell anyone that you gave these materials to us.” On July 31, Lee instructed the investigation team to withhold the transfer to the police and cancel the press briefing scheduled for that day. MBC reported that shortly before giving the order, Lee received a phone call from the presidential office.

Colonel Park Jung-hoon, former head of the Marine Corps’ investigation team, claimed he asked Marine Corps Commander Kim Kye-hwan why the briefing was canceled and heard that it was because of the so-called “VIP’s rage.” Park said Kim allegedly explained that the VIP (the President) was furious after being briefed on the results of the Marine Corps’ investigation, and called former minister Lee and reprimanded him, saying, “If a division commander is punished for something like this, who else can take up the post in South Korea?”

Since then, the Ministry of National Defense subsequently urged the Marine Corps’ investigation team through various channels not to specify the suspects in the documents for the transfer to the police.

The documents submitted to the police by the ministry’s Criminal Investigation Command (CIC), which took over the case, excluded Lim Sung-geun, then commander of the Marine Corps' first Division, and only indicated the charges of two battalion commanders.

These are key clues to addressing the presidential office's alleged external pressure to the investigation. It is also the point where the allegation that Lee conveyed the will of the presidential office to the Marine Corps in the middle began. Of course, Commander Kim, former Minister Lee, and the presidential office have all denied Colonel Park’s allegation.

Other Marine investigators also told the military prosecution that they heard about the "VIP’s rage" from Park on July 31. Then, the military prosecution asked them if they had ever verified the truth of the story about President Yoon Suk-yeol. An investigator replied, "I couldn't because it was something that I couldn't confirm." Park submitted an opinion letter containing circumstantial evidence to support the claim related to the president to the Central District Military Court on the 14th.

Why did the presidential office get the press briefing materials from the Marine Corps investigation team in advance and tell them not to talk about it? There are so many things that need to be clarified, such as why the presidential office contacted Lee and the Marine Corps several times from July 30 to August 2 last year when the Marine Corps’ investigation team pushed ahead with the police transfer, why Lee asked the Marine Corps' investigation team to delay the transfer, referring to August 9, which was President Yoon's return date from vacation, and why the presidential office checked the safety of former division commander Lim Sung-geun several times to the Marine Corps.

Yet the presidential office appointed Lee as South Korea’s ambassador to Australia and sent him out of the country. The appointment and departure of Lee as ambassador to Australia raised suspicions of “letting Lee escape from the investigation” as there are many circumstances that suggest Lee acted as a middleman between the presidential office and the Marine Corps.

The key point of the controversy is that the presidential office, which is at the center of the alleged external pressure, replaced the people on the security office’s reporting line at the time of the incident and the deputy defense minister, and even sent the defense minister abroad. While the former minister has said that he will ”faithfully respond to the CIO’s summons“ and will voluntarily return home soon, this is far from the essence of the matter.

The main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) proposed an independent counsel bill on former Minister Lee's departure process as an official party platform. An official from the presidential office criticized, "It is very ironic that the DPK launched the CIO because it couldn’t trust prosecutors, but now it is asking for a special investigation because it cannot trust the CIO.”

Still, as the controversy did not subside, the presidential office began to criticize the CIO. It claimed that why didn't the CIO summon Lee even though it banned him from leaving the country. The presidential office first took issue with the fact that Lee's overseas travel ban leaked to the media, and said, “We reviewed the accusations during the ambassador‘s verification process and determined that there was no problem at all.” Criticism has been raised that the presidential office actually presented guidelines for the investigation by concluding that "there was no problem at all" with the ongoing investigation by the CIO.

The presidential office claimed that “Lee was allowed to leave the country from the CIO,” but the CIO countered that “He was never given permission to leave the country.” When the ruling People’s Power Party (PPP) asked Lee to be summoned immediately, the CIO dismissed it, saying it is a matter for its investigation team to decide.

A post for the head of the CIO has been vacant for two months. Two candidates were shortlisted for the post on February 29, but Yoon has not made a decision for nearly three weeks. In other words, the government has left the position vacant while exerting pressure on the investigation schedule. As a result, this makes it difficult to trust the presidential office’s remarks, such as “Don’t you trust the CIO?” and “A special investigation is a waste of time.”

※This article has undergone review by a professional translator after being translated by an AI translation tool.