[Edaily Kim Sang-yoon Reporter Hwang Byung-seo] President Lee Jae-myung has eased the burden of personnel appointments by accepting the resignation of Yong Hye-in, the nominee for Minister of Gender Equality and Family, but appears determined to proceed with the appointment of Kim Seung-won as Minister of Justice. With the withdrawal of Nominee Yong narrowing the ruling party’s personnel front to just Nominee Kim, the issue of “dismissing the indictment” in the criminal case involving President Lee has emerged as the key point of contention regarding Nominee Kim’s appointment.
If the administration were to abandon Mr. Kim’s nomination, the key appointment tasked with abolishing the Prosecutors’ Office and launching the Public Indictment Office would be thrown into disarray, and a decline in the administration’s grip on state affairs due to a chain reaction of nominations falling through would be inevitable. Conversely, if the appointment goes through, the administration will face criticism for a “bulletproof appointment”—naming as Minister of Justice a figure who has long advocated for the dismissal of charges in President Lee’s case.

Nominee Yong withdrew on the 13th—just 14 days after his nomination—stating that the Democratic Party had demanded he make a decision regarding whether to hold both his proportional representation seat in the National Assembly and the ministerial post concurrently. Democratic Party Chairman Kim Min-seok urged him to resign, and Chief of Staff Kim Tae-seon conveyed this message. This is interpreted as Chairman Kim taking the lead to avoid the political burden of President Lee having to personally withdraw the nomination. With Nominee Yong’s resignation, the personnel front that President Lee must defend has narrowed to just one person: Nominee Kim.
Nominee Kim has been the architect of the criminal justice system overhaul under the Lee Jae-myung administration. As the secretary of the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee, he spearheaded legislation related to the abolition of the Prosecutors’ Office and the launch of the Major Crimes Investigation Agency and the Public Prosecution Service. With the implementation of these reforms imminent, if Nominee Kim were to withdraw, a vacuum would arise in policy implementation while a successor is sought, and President Lee’s grip on state affairs could be undermined.
The burden of a series of withdrawals is also significant. If Nominee Kim were to step down following former Gender Equality Minister nominee Kang Seon-woo and Nominee Yong, the failure in personnel vetting could spread to the entire second-term cabinet. For President Lee, the best option to minimize the fallout from these personnel issues might be to dismiss Nominee Yong and ensure that Nominee Kim, at the very least, is confirmed through the confirmation hearing.
However, the more President Lee tries to protect Nominee Kim, the more he falls into the paradox of highlighting his own legal risks. Nominee Kim served as co-chair of the “Parliamentary Group for the Dismissal of Indictments in the President Lee Jae-myung Case and the Promotion of a Parliamentary Inquiry,” where he spearheaded the campaign to have the indictments dismissed. In effect, President Lee has nominated someone who led efforts on an issue directly linked to his own case to serve as Minister of Justice, a position responsible for directing and supervising the prosecution.
President Lee’s criminal trials—including those related to corruption in the Daejang-dong and Baekhyeon-dong development projects and violations of the Public Official Election Act—have been suspended since his inauguration by court order, but the indictments remain active. Once his term ends, the trials are likely to resume, leaving open the possibility that President Lee will once again stand trial. On the other hand, if the prosecution dismisses the indictments, the court will issue a decision to dismiss the charges. Once this decision becomes final, it will be difficult to indict him again on the same charges unless new, significant evidence is discovered. If the charges are dropped, President Lee would effectively be relieved of the burden of facing trial for those cases after leaving office.
Of course, the Minister of Justice does not have the authority to withdraw the indictment directly. However, under the current Prosecutors’ Office Act, the Minister may direct and supervise the Prosecutor General regarding specific cases. This is why the opposition claims that the nomination of Nominee Kim is a “bulletproof appointment” aimed at withdrawing the indictment after President Lee leaves office.
On the 3rd, Nominee Kim stated, “I have no intention of issuing directives through the Prosecutor General at this time.” However, in a written response to the National Assembly on the 12th, when asked whether he had instructed a review of the indictment withdrawal, he replied, “I will perform all duties fairly in accordance with laws and regulations.” When asked whether he would recuse himself from cases involving President Lee, he also avoided giving a definitive answer, stating, “I will make a judgment in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.”
The Democratic Party has stepped up to defend Nominee Kim. Party Leader Kim recently said, “The more I look at it, the more I see this is a good appointment,” adding, “We will stand by him.” Jin Jung-kwon, a special professor at Gwangwoon University, wrote on Facebook that day, “In this cabinet reshuffle, everything else is just window dressing; the key is Kim Seung-won,” and claimed, “No matter what happens, the President will appoint Kim Seung-won.”