 ▲ 이재명 대통령이 6일 오전 청와대에서 열린 제25차 수석보좌관회의에서 모두 발언하고 있다. ©뉴시스 |
이재명 대통령이 16일 “검찰개혁에 대한 일각 우려는 기우”라며 전날 민주당 초선 의원들과의 회동에서 검찰개혁 관련 협조를 당부했다는 보도 관련해 "사실이 아니다”고 반박했다.
이 대통령은 이날 오후 엑스(X·구 트위터)에 김어준 유투버를 비롯한 검찰개혁 관련 여당 강성 지지층 반발성 발언이 담긴 기사를 공유하며 장문의 반박성 글을 올린 가운데 현직 대통령의 이같은 직접 언급은 상당히 이례적이다.
그러면서 “검찰개혁 핵심은 수사·기소를 분리해 검사 수사권을 배제하는 것”이라며 “국민주권정부는 검찰개혁을 통해 검찰이 직접 수사하거나 영장청구 등 헌법이 정한 권한 외 수사기관 수사에 관여하지 못하게 한다는 명확한 방침을 갖고 있다”고 했다.
또 “수사·기소 분리·검찰 수사배제는 국정과제로 이미 확정된 것이며 돌이킬 수 없다”며 “그런데 공소청 책임자 명칭을 헌법이 규정한 ‘검찰총장’으로 할 건지 공소청장으로 할 건지 검사 전원을 면직 후 선별 재임용할 것인지 수사 기소 분리(검사 수사 배제)와는 직접 관련 없는 것”이라고 했다.
이어 “개혁은 실질 성과가 중요하다"며 "본질과 괴리된 과도한 선명성 경쟁·긴요하지 않은 조치 때문에 해체돼야 할 기득 세력이 반격 명분·재결집 기회를 갖게 할 필요가 없다”고 주장했다.
더불어 “과잉 때문에 결정적 개혁 기회를 놓치고 결국 기득권 귀환을 허용한 역사적 경험을 상기해 볼 필요 있다”며 "정부안이 입법예고되었으나 당·정부가 당정협의를 통해 수정안을 만들었고 여당 당론으로 채택된 바 이는 정부안 아닌 당정협의안이며 이 역시 만고불변 확정안 아닌 필요하면 입법과정서 또 논의·수정하면 된다”고 했다.
이 대통령은 “그 재수정은 수사·기소 분리·검찰 수사배제란 대원칙 관철에 도움되는 것이어야지 만의 하나라도 누군가의 선명성을 드러내거나 검찰개혁 본질과 무관한 다른 목적에 의한 것이어선 안될 것”이라고 했다.
그러면서 “집권세력은 집권 이유·가치를 잃지 않되 언제나 국가·국민 모두를 위해 모든 국민을 대표하려 노력해야 한다”며 “위헌논란 소지를 남겨 반격 기회·명분을 허용할만큼 검찰총장 명칭을 공소청장으로 굳이 바꾸어야할 이유를 납득키 어렵다”고 주장했다.
또 “재임용 기준도 불명확한 마당에 사조직화 주장 등으로 반격 여지를 만들어 주면서까지 검사전원해임 선별재임용이란 부담을 떠안을 이유도 분명치 않다”며 “헌법은 검찰사무 주체로 검사를 검찰사무 총책임자로 검찰총장을 명시하고 있어 검찰사무담당기관명은 검찰청이 상식적으로 맞으나 검찰청을 공소청으로 바꾸었더니 이제와 검찰총장을 공소청장, 검사를 공소관으로 바꿔야한다는 건 과유불급”이라고 주장했다.
이어 "수사·기소 분리·검찰 수사배제란 정부의 명확한 국정과제인 검찰개혁은 추호 흔들림 없이 추진할 것”이라며 “다만 국민 삶과 국가 백년대계 국정시스템을 대대적으로 재구성함에 일호 빈틈도 있어선 안 된다”고 했다.
더불어 “객관성·평정심을 잃지 않고 지금 이 순간을 넘어 세월이 지나고 세력관계가 변할지라도 언제나 통용될 수 있는 합리·효율적이며 악용되기 어려운 시스템을 만들어야 하고, 그 판단기준은 국민 눈높이”라고 했다.
이 대통령은 “덮어 돈 벌고, 만들어 출세한다. 정치검찰의 사건 조작만큼 부패 검찰의 사건 덮기도 문제”라며 “수사권 남용하는 검찰 수사권 제한도 중요하나 경찰 등 수사기관 사건 덮기에서 범죄 피해자들을 보호하고 부패범죄자들을 규제하는 것도 중요하다”고 했다.
또 “수사 종결후 송치된 사건 보완수사 문제는 추후 검사 수사지휘를 규정하고 있는 형사소송법 개정시 심층 논의하기로 되어 있다”며 “보완수사 허용 여부 역시 남용가능성 등을 고려해 충분히 논의하길 바란다”고 했다.
이어 공유한 기사 관련해선 “아래 기사중 정부안 통과를 의원들에게 당부했다는 건 사실이 아니다"며 “정부안이란 기실 당정합의 수정안이며 법안이란 심의도중 의견을 모아 언제든 수정할 수 있는 것”이라고 했다.
그러면서 “일부 언론이 보도한 ‘나쁜 검사들만 있는 건 아니다’ 언급 역시 왜곡된 것”이라며 “정치화된 일부 특수부 검사들도 있으나 충직하게 본분을 다하는 검사들도 많으니 전원해임 재임용 등으로 전체를 몰아 모욕감을 줄 필요는 없다는 언급의 일부를 떼어낸 것으로 말 진의가 왜곡됐다”고 했다.
영문 기사의 [전문]입니다. '구글번역'은 이해도 높이기를 위해 노력하고 있습니다. 영문 번역에 오류가 있을 수 있음을 전제로 합니다.<*The following is [the full text] of the English article translated by 'Google Translate'. 'Google Trworking hard to improve understanding. It is assumed that there may be errors in the English translation.
President Lee Jae-myung: "Concerns in Some Sectors Regarding Prosecution Reform Are Groundless... Will Push Forward Without the Slight Wavering"
Sharing an article on X (formerly Twitter) containing backlash from the ruling party's hardline supporters regarding prosecution reform, the incumbent president posted a lengthy rebuttal stating, "The title of 'Commissioner of the Prosecution Service' is unrelated." Direct mention by the incumbent president is highly unusual.
-kihong Kim reporter
On the 16th, President Lee Jae-myung refuted reports that he had asked for cooperation regarding prosecution reform during a meeting with first-term Democratic Party lawmakers the previous day, stating, "Some concerns regarding prosecution reform are unfounded."
President Lee posted a lengthy rebuttal on X (formerly Twitter) that afternoon, sharing an article containing backlash against prosecution reform from hardline ruling party supporters, including YouTuber Kim Ou-joon. Such direct remarks by a sitting president are highly unusual.
He added, "The core of prosecution reform is to separate investigation and indictment to exclude prosecutors' investigative powers," stating, "The Government of People's Sovereignty has a clear policy through prosecution reform to ensure that the prosecution does not directly investigate or interfere in investigations by investigative agencies beyond the authority stipulated by the Constitution, such as requesting warrants."
He further stated, “The separation of investigation and prosecution, and the exclusion of prosecutors from investigation, have already been established as national policy tasks and cannot be reversed.” He added, “However, whether the head of the Indictment Agency should be titled ‘Prosecutor General’ as stipulated by the Constitution or ‘Commissioner of the Indictment Agency,’ or whether all prosecutors should be dismissed and then selectively reappointed, are not directly related to the separation of investigation and prosecution (the exclusion of prosecutors from investigation).”
He continued, “Substantive results are crucial for reform,” arguing, “There is no need to allow vested interests, which should be dismantled due to excessive competition for clarity detached from the essence or non-essential measures, to gain a pretext for a counterattack and an opportunity to regroup.”
He added, “We need to recall the historical experience where we missed decisive reform opportunities due to excess and ultimately allowed the return of vested interests.” He noted, “Although the government proposal was announced for legislative notice, the party and the government created a revised version through consultations and adopted it as the ruling party’s official stance. This is a proposal from the consultations, not the government proposal, and it is not an immutable final version; it can be discussed and modified again during the legislative process if necessary.”
President Lee stated, “That revision must be helpful in upholding the fundamental principles of separating investigation and prosecution and excluding the prosecution from investigation; it must not, under any circumstances, be intended to reveal the distinct stance of any particular individual or for any other purpose unrelated to the essence of prosecution reform.”
He added, “The ruling power must not lose sight of its reasons for and values in power, but must always strive to represent all citizens for the sake of both the nation and the people.” He argued, “It is difficult to understand the reason for insisting on changing the title of Prosecutor General to ‘Chief of the Indictment Office’ to the extent that it leaves room for constitutional controversy and allows for an opportunity and justification for a counterattack.”
President Lee He further argued, “Given that the criteria for reappointment are unclear, there is no clear reason to shoulder the burden of dismissing all prosecutors and selectively reappointing them, especially while creating room for counterattacks through claims of the organization becoming a private syndicate.”
He continued, “The Constitution designates prosecutors as the subjects of prosecution affairs and the Prosecutor General as the chief executive; therefore, the name of the agency responsible for prosecution affairs is logically correct as the Prosecution Office. However, changing the Prosecution Office to the Indictment Agency and now demanding that the Prosecutor General be changed to the Head of the Indictment Agency and prosecutors to Indictment Officers is going too far.”
He added, “We will push forward with prosecution reform, which is the government’s clear national agenda of separating investigation and indictment and excluding prosecution from investigation, without the slightest wavering.” He emphasized, “However, there must be not a single loophole in the extensive restructuring of the national governance system, which is a long-term plan for the nation and the lives of the people.”
He concluded by stating, “We will push forward with prosecution reform without the slightest hesitation, as it is a clear national agenda of the government regarding the separation of investigation and indictment and the exclusion of prosecution from investigation.”
In addition, he stated, “We must create a rational, efficient, and difficult-to-abuse system that can always be applied beyond this moment, even as time passes and power dynamics shift, without losing objectivity and composure, and the standard for judgment should be the public’s perspective.”
President Lee remarked, “They cover things up to make money and fabricate them to climb the ladder of success. Covering up cases by corrupt prosecutors is just as problematic as the fabrication of cases by political prosecutors.”
He added, “While restricting the investigative powers of prosecutors who abuse their authority is important, it is equally important to protect crime victims from cover-ups by investigative agencies such as the police and to regulate corrupt criminals.”
He further stated, “The issue of supplementary investigations for cases transferred after the conclusion of an investigation is scheduled for in-depth discussion during the subsequent amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act, which stipulates the investigative command of prosecutors.” He expressed his hope that “whether to allow supplementary investigations will also be discussed sufficiently, taking into account the potential for abuse.”
Regarding the shared article, he continued, “It is not true that I urged lawmakers to pass the government bill mentioned in the article below.” He explained, “The government bill is in fact a revised version agreed upon by the ruling party and the government, and a bill can be modified at any time by gathering opinions during deliberation.”
He added, “The remark reported by some media outlets that ‘there are not only bad prosecutors’ is also distorted,” stating, “The true meaning of the statement was distorted because a part of it was taken out of context, which meant that while there are some politicized special investigation unit prosecutors, there are also many who faithfully fulfill their duties, so there is no need to humiliate the entire group by dismissing and reappointing them all.”
