authoritarian regimes, also characterized the pre- 1987 era of Korea. Although some
initiatives achieved their intended goals, the Kim Young-sam administration
( 1993 – 8 ) and the Kim Dae-jung administration ( 1998 – 2003 ) did too little to abate
the personalization of public powers sufficiently to distance themselves from the
dark legacy of their authoritarian predecessors.
The Roh Moo-hyun administration ( 2003 – 8 ) made an effort to depart from the
authoritarian legacy of the personalization of public powers. Even his political
opponents accepted that President Roh was eager to forgo political misuse of law-
enforcement powers such as the prosecutorial office, the police, the national
intelligence service and the tax office. However, as soon as President Roh’s term
ended, the useful arms of presidential powers became increasingly politicized.
For example, public confidence in the prosecutor’s office declined as soon as the
inauguration of President Lee Myong-bak because the office has become highly
politicized in its abuse of monopolized power of indictment and investigation.
The fact that former President Roh was forced to face an arbitrary investigation for
bribery shortly after his retirement, and his eventual suicide, should be enough
to verify the revival of a dark legacy.
In addition to this political retaliation through criminal proceedings, in a
number of other cases politically motivated indictments turned out to have no
legal grounds in the courts. The president of the Korean Broadcasting System
(KBS) refused to resign and challenged the new president Lee Myong-bak’s request
to resign with no legal ground. He was indicted for breach of trust, but no
wrongdoing in his performance was found in the criminal proceedings.^57 The
producers of a popular focus report, calledPD’s Notebook, of the Moonwha
Broadcasting Company (MBC), whose program about mad cow disease had been
blamed for inciting the public to mount anti-Lee Myong-bak candlelit demonstra-
tions lasting more than three months by distorting facts and opinions, were indicted
for defamation but found not guilty.^58 Another indictment, of an amateur eco-
nomic commentator who, using the pseudonym “Minerva,” rose to popularity by
disseminating false information, was also rejected because the law used to indict
him was declared unconstitutional.^59 On the other hand, the prosecutor’s office
either did not investigate, or intentionally delayed investigation of, important
abuses or misuses of governmental powers. For example, although the office
revealed that public officials of the Prime Minister’s Office were involved in the
(^57) Supreme Court Decision 2010 Do 15129 , January 12 , 2012. See also Kim Tae-jong, “Ex-KBS
head cleared of charges of breach of trust,”Korea Times, 12 January 2012 , available atwww.
koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/include/print.asp?newsIdx= 102764.
(^58) Supreme Court Decision 2010 Do 17237 , September 2 , 2011. See also Kim Tae-jong, “PD
Notebook producers cleared of defamation,”Korea Times, September 2 , 2011 , available at
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/include/print.asp?newsIdx= 94089.
(^59) Constitutional Court Decision 2008 Hun-Ba 157 • 2009 Hun-Ba 88 (consolidated), December
28 , 2010 ,Korean Constitutional Court Reports, Vol. 22 ,No 2 , Part 2 , 684.