Independent lawmaker Han Dong-hoon claimed that former President Roh Moo-hyun or his family had illegally received expensive watches and tens of billions of won from Park Yeon-cha, describing the claims as “fact.” Kwak Sang-eon, Roh’s son-in-law and a lawmaker with the Democratic Party of Korea (더불어민주당), countered by demanding that Han clearly show and substantiate his evidence. The reporting provided does not present the specific evidence Han says he has, or the findings of courts or investigative agencies regarding the allegations.

Background and context

At a forum on amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act (형사소송법) on October 1, Han claimed that Roh himself or his family had received a Piaget watch worth more than 300 million won from Park Yeon-cha and had illegally received tens of billions of won. In a Facebook post the following day, he also wrote that it was “fact” that they had received two Piaget watches and tens of billions of won. The remarks fueled controversy because they went beyond raising allegations and used language presenting them as fact.

In a Facebook post on October 3, Kwak said he had either taken part in the investigation at the time as a lawyer or been questioned as a witness or a “witness treated as a suspect.” He said that he himself did not know which parts of the investigation’s announcements at the time, or of the media reports relaying them, were true and to what extent. His point was that his own experience of being investigated and also taking part as a lawyer did not allow him to verify whether the allegations were true.

Kwak demanded that Han clearly show and substantiate the facts he was claiming, adding that if they were confirmed as true, he would apologize and accept criticism and punishment. Later that same day, Han again claimed that Roh himself or his family had received a large sum from Park Yeon-cha to help Kwak and his wife buy an apartment in the United States. The reporting provided does not include any subsequent response from Kwak to this additional claim.

Reactions from politicians followed. On October 2, Democratic Party of Korea spokesperson Cho Gye-won criticized Han’s remarks, saying there was no court ruling concerning Roh. Cho Kuk, head of the Rebuilding Korea Party (조국혁신당)’s Institute for Innovation Policy Research (혁신정책연구원), and Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Yoon Kun-young were also reported to have criticized the remarks that day. These criticisms are confirmed as political reactions; they are not, in themselves, evidence that determines whether the allegations are true.

What this news means

When considering this dispute, it is important to distinguish between the categorical language of the person making an allegation, the evidence supporting that claim, and any legal findings. It is confirmed that Han called the allegations “fact,” but that expression alone does not establish that the alleged receipt of money and valuables occurred. Conversely, the fact that Kwak demanded evidence or that politicians criticized Han is not the same as a judicial finding disproving the allegations.

The key issue, ultimately, is what evidence is being used to claim that the watches and money were received, and what facts that evidence supports. In particular, Han’s remarks included both the phrase “a watch worth more than 300 million won” and the phrase “two Piaget watches worth 300 million won.” Since the reporting does not provide specific details about the valuables or the circumstances in which they were allegedly received, the repetition of these claims alone should not be used to draw more specific conclusions about the allegations or the extent to which they have been substantiated.

Such disputes can affect not only assessments of the deceased and their family, but also how investigation results are understood and cited. For example, anyone passing this claim on to someone else should distinguish between saying “Han claimed this” and saying “the receipt of money and valuables was confirmed as fact.” The information provided so far does not include supporting material that would justify the latter statement.

What is confirmed and what remains unknown

Confirmed

  • At a forum on October 1 and in a Facebook post on October 2, Han claimed as fact that Roh himself or his family had received watches and money.
  • On October 3, Kwak demanded to see the evidence and said he did not know which parts of the investigation’s announcements and media reports at the time were true.
  • On October 3, Han made the additional claim that a large sum had been received to help Kwak and his wife buy an apartment in the United States.
  • Spokesperson Cho Gye-won criticized Han, saying there was no court ruling; Cho Kuk and lawmaker Yoon Kun-young were also reported to have criticized the remarks.

Still unknown

  • What specific materials does Han consider evidence supporting his claims about the watches and the receipt of money?
  • If a court or investigative agency has made findings on the allegations, what were those findings and what did they cover?
  • What position, if any, did Kwak subsequently take on Han’s additional claim of October 3?

What readers should check

  • When encountering these claims, check who made the statement and when, and do not treat an allegation and an established fact as equivalent.
  • Rather than drawing a conclusion from the word “fact” alone, examine both the materials supporting the claim and what those materials actually establish.
  • When a legal finding is mentioned, check who described it and in what terms, and distinguish that from whether the specific findings have been presented.