South Korea ruling party presses president over alleged charge-dropping deal risking constitutional order

The ruling People Power Party pressed President Lee Jae-myung to publicly address a claim it calls the “charge-dropping deal.” The party said the matter, if true, could threaten constitutional order and warrant serious scrutiny.

Senior party spokesman Park Seong-hoon criticized the president for previously attacking media over allegations of his ties to organized crime, and asked why he has remained silent about the so-called deal to drop charges raised by the talk show host Kim Eo-jun.

Park described the allegation as a potentially grave crime if proven, noting that the constitutional order could be destabilized. He contrasted the president’s current silence with past behavior in which he used social media as a courtroom-like platform to argue his cases.

The spokesman also accused the Democratic Party of selective enforcement, saying they filed a complaint only against the guest who made the charge and did not include the show’s host, Kim Eo-jun. He suggested that by limiting action, the party was effectively shielding the host and enabling what he called “the knife-like media.”

Park urged that if the charge is fake, it should be exposed transparently through a special prosecutor. He warned that anyone who hides the truth or tries to shield power would face accountability at the ballot box.

In the same exchange, President Lee Jae-myung had, on his social media, referenced a lawyer who first raised the gang-connection claim. He noted that the lawyer, Jang Young-ha, has since been found guilty by the Supreme Court, and criticized media coverage that he says expands unverified claims without issuing corrections.

For U.S. readers, the dispute highlights core questions about the rule of law, media responsibility, and political risk in South Korea. Korea’s stability as a security ally and key technology supplier depends on credible investigations, predictable governance, and transparent handling of allegations involving high-level officials. Any sustained political crisis or questions about judicial independence could affect investor confidence, policy continuity, and cooperation on security and tech supply chains that are important to the United States.