Go to contents

Agreement on Special Prosecution Investigation into `Lee Yong-Ho Gate`

Agreement on Special Prosecution Investigation into `Lee Yong-Ho Gate`

Posted November. 02, 2001 08:54,   


The ruling and opposition parties had a seven lawmakers` negotiation committee for introducing the special prosecution system to the suspicions surrounding G&C chairperson Lee Young-Ho`s financial corruption scandal on Nov.1, and agreed upon some controversial issues, including the operation of this special prosecution system for a limited time and the appointment of a special prosecutor through the process of Korean Bar Association`s recommendation and the President`s approval.

At this committee, the Grand National Party (GNP), regarding the special prosecutor`s term of investigation, withdrew from its former claim for a six-month first investigation and a six-month second investigation, suggesting to keep the investigation from being continued until right before the next year`s presidential election, and presented a revised proposal that the investigation be completed before June of next year, referring to a 20-day preparation, a four-month first investigation and an additional three-month investigation only if necessary.

But both parties did not reach an agreement on this issue because the New Millennium Democratic Party (MDP) proposed a 20-day preparation, a 50-day first investigation and 30-day additional period if necessary. Concerning the subject of investigation, the GNP argued that Lee Young-Ho`s scandal of financial corruption and suspicion of lobbying and the treasure-search scandal which the former director of the National Intelligence Service`s Economics Department Kim Hyung-Yoon was involved in should be regarded as a single incident, whereas the MDP objected that the subject of investigation should not be expanded without limit.

Besides, compromise proposals were presented at the committee, regarding the bestowment of authority to summon references and the permission to present interim findings, that the authority should be recognized when the first summon has been rejected, and that the presentation of interim findings should be allowed only once or twice. But the committee members did not reach an agreement on these issues. The ruling and opposition parties decided to have another meeting on Oct. 5 and discuss dissenting issues.