by Kim Pyung-woo (Attorney and former head of Korean Bar Association)

There are five criminal charges involving Park listed in the impeachment bill. Let's take a look at each one.

1. KD Corporation: Park has been charged with abuse of power and coercion for requesting Hyundai Motor Group through presidential secretary An Chong-beom to purchase components from KD Corporation, which is owned by a close friend of Choi, resulting in a W1 billion contract that lasted from February of 2015 to September of 2016. Choi allegedly received around W50 million from KD Corporation, including a Chanel handbag, which was viewed as a bribe that can be linked to the president. First of all, the receipt of W50 million worth of gifts was a private transaction involving close friends. As a result, it has no relationship with the president. It is a mystery how this could be construed as a bribe involving the president. It appears to be purely a rationale lawmakers concocted in order to shame the president and push through their impeachment bill.

Let's take a look at the charges of abuse of power and coercion. First of all, the president did not instruct Hyundai Motor, but instructed her secretary, so the request does not constitute coercion. Ofcourse it would have been a problem if the contents of the request involved a firm order to get Hyundai to sign the supply deal, but that was not the case. The president is a human being and could have asked a company to consider a potential supplier in order to help a small business owned by a friend or close confidante. We cannot consider that as abuse of power (didn't past presidents make requests on behalf of businesses owned by their friends?). The problem is the intensity of the request. Judging by what is stated in the impeachment bill, Park does not seem to have committed an act that goes beyond common sense and practice.

2. Playground: Park instructed her secretary, An Chong-beom, to let Hyundai Motor Group award five advertisement contracts worth around W900 million to an ad agency owned by Choi called Playground from April to May of 2016 and the act constitutes abuse of power and coercion. The same criteria as the one pertaining to KD Corporation applies to this case. Judging by what is stated in the impeachment bill, Park does not seem to have committed an act that goes beyond common sense and practice.

3. POSCO: On Feb. 22, 2016, Park asked the chairman of POSCO to form a women's badminton team and to let the Blue K (a sports consultancy created by Choi) to be its advisor. A POSCO subsidiary created a fencing team in March of 2016 and agreed to have the Blue K serve as an advisor. As a result, Park's conduct constitutes abuse of power and coercion, according to the charges made against her.

As stated earlier, the president is a human being and could have made a personal request to a business in order to help a friend. Since it was a private request, there is no precedent of such conduct constituting abuse of power. The matter should be judged based on common practices. Although far from being desirable, all past presidents have made personal requests to businesses in order to help people close to them. There is no evidence showing that Park's request was markedly burdensome compared to those made by previous presidents. If so, Park must not be the only president to be charged with abuse of power. According to past legal precedents, charges of coercion require threats or acts of violence in order to stick. There is no statement in the impeachment bill suggesting that Park committed such offenses. That means the charges do not meet the requirements that constitute coercion.

4. KT Corporation: In Januar and August of 2015, Park instructed her secretary An Chong-beom to ask the chairman of KT to hire two people recommended by Choi who ended up getting hired, while in February of 2016, she instructed through An to have the Blue K be selected as KT's advertising company. As a result, the Blue K received seven ad contracts worth W500 million from KT in August of 2016 and the president was charged with abuse of power and coercion.

The same criteria as the three earlier cases is applicable once again. The president was wrong to make a personal request, but whether her actions constitute a criminal offense is an entirely different matter. And the charge of coercion does not apply, since there was no violence or threat made. There is no legal precedent showing that a president's personal request to hire people constitutes abuse of power. And there is no proof that Park's request was worse than the requests made by past leaders. As a result, Park cannot be the only president to be charged with abuse of power.

5. Grand Korea Leisure: In January of 2016, Park instructed her secretary, An Chong-beom, to introduce the Blue K owned by Choi to a company called Grand Korea Leisure run by the Korea National Tourism Organization. Around May of 2016, the two companies signed a commission deal to form a fencing team composed of handicapped athletes, while the Blue K was awarded W30 million to serve as the team's agent. As a result, Park was charged with abuse of power and coercion.

The same criteria as the four earlier cases is applicable once again. The president was wrong to make a personal request, but whether her actions constitute a criminal offense is an entirely different matter. And the charge of coercion does not apply, since there was no violence or threat made. There is no legal precedent showing that a president's personal request to a business constitutes abuse of power. And there is no proof that Park's request was worse than the requests made by past leaders. As a result, Park cannot be the only president to be charged with abuse of power.

The five aforementioned corruption charges constitute the so-called Choi Soon-sil scandal that prompted protesters to fill the streets of downtown Seoul over the past two months and prompt lawmakers to impeach the president. The total amount is estimated at less than W1.5 billion. That is less than a tenth of the amount involved in scandals involving the aides of former presidents. The only involvement concerning Park is the fact that she instructed her secretary to offer help, while there was no exercise of violence or threats. The president made a mistake by making a personal request to businesses, but this does not constitute bribery, coercion or abuse of power.

The next violations involve the leaking of confidential documents. Park has been accused of leaking a total of 47 confidential documents to Choi through her secretary, Jeong Ho-seong, from January of 2013 to April of 2016 either by e-mail or having them delivered to her. The charges seem damaging on the surface. But the leak of confidential information according to Article 127 of the Criminal Law does not concern information classified as confidential, but containing information that is worthy of protecting, according to legal precedents. Also, handing over documents to select individuals out of necessity can be considered as part of official duty according to Article 20 of the Criminal Law and is not considered to be subject to criminal prosecution due to its justifiable nature.

Choi Soon-sil may not be a public servant, but if she gained the trust of the president and obtained Cheong WaDae documents through Park's secretaries since she wished to hear the confidante's opinions on matters, then the actions constitute a part of the president's official duties and cannot be considered as a crime of divulging state secrets. As the supreme leader of our country, the president possesses the highest level of discretionary power. It is improper to use the same standards applied to ordinary public servants to accuse her of divulging state secrets. What country in the world accuses its leader of divulging state secrets? The mere act of attempting to incriminate a president by accusing her of administrative and technical faults that would not even be applied to ministers or lawmakers lacks common sense from a legal standpoint.

Dec. 26, 2016