The author is the head of the editorial board at the JoongAng Ilbo.
"Do not multiply assumptions unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is most likely true."
This principle, known as Occam's razor, was introduced by 13th-century English friar William of Ockham. In seeking the cause of any event, the simplest answer often proves the most accurate.

The government's decision to forgo an appeal in the Daejang-dong corruption case has triggered a tangle of contradictory explanations. Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho said he merely advised caution but gave no instruction. Acting Prosecutor General Noh Man-seok said he received what was effectively a proposal to drop the appeal from Vice Justice Minister Lee Jin-soo. Yet Lee claimed it was a "prosecutorial decision made independently." The Democratic Party (DP) has since reframed the controversy as an act of "judicial restraint."

The common thread in all these explanations is the claim that President Lee Jae Myung was not involved. But the public's question is simple, echoing Occam's razor: "Would the prosecution have dropped the appeal if not for President Lee?" No amount of legal or procedural argument can obscure that question.
When cases grow complex, one must return to a more ancient maxim: Cui bono - who benefits? The Roman orator Cicero used it to expose motive in the courtroom, just as detectives from Sherlock Holmes to Hercule Poirot and Columbo have done in fiction.
In a recent broadcast, Woo Sang-ho, senior presidential secretary for political affairs, insisted, "Why would we help Kim Man-bae? Those people are our enemies. What benefit could the president possibly gain when all the trials have already stopped?" His logic seems sound, yet the mystery deepens. If the administration had no intention of helping the Daejang-dong figures, why did the Justice Ministry block the prosecution's appeal? And why did prosecutors ultimately back down?
The appeal's withdrawal effectively finalized acquittals for the Daejang-dong defendants on charges of breach of trust under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes - the very charge that President Lee faces. Given that his own trial will resume after his presidency, it is hard to argue he had no stake in the outcome.
Instead of addressing this simple question, the ruling party has launched a war of narratives. Officials have accused protesting prosecutors of "insubordination" and branded criticism as "selective outrage," pointing to past silence under former president Yoon Suk Yeol. That silence was indeed shameful, but demanding silence again now only repeats the same political coercion. The prosecution leadership's decision to abandon the appeal exemplifies the behavior of a politically subservient institution. If prosecutors express anger at such capitulation, the DP - which has long championed prosecutorial neutrality - should be encouraging them, not condemning them.
Immanuel Kant urged that one act only according to principles that could be made universal laws. If those in power cannot apply the same standards of law and morality to themselves, silence is preferable. The question "Can your decision be applied universally?" separates justice from expedience. When it cannot be answered, law becomes the language of power. Today, the DP increasingly mirrors the old People Power Party it once opposed. The retort "You did it too" is no substitute for moral progress.
Under the Lee administration, the boundary between public and private interests in the judicial sphere has blurred. The party seeks to abolish breach-of-trust crimes and even create new "judicial distortion" offenses - legislation widely seen as serving one man's interests. The head of the Office for Government Legislation, who previously served as Lee's defense attorney, recently spoke in the National Assembly more like a personal lawyer than a public official. Though a proposed law to suspend trials was halted only after the president intervened,...

Ver todos los episodios