Cui bono: Who benefits from the decision to drop the appeal?

Home > Opinion > Columns

Cui bono: Who benefits from the decision to drop the appeal?

Published: 13 Nov. 2025, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Lee Hyun-sang

The author is the head of the editorial board at the JoongAng Ilbo.

“Do not multiply assumptions unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is most likely true.”
This principle, known as Occam’s razor, was introduced by 13th-century English friar William of Ockham. In seeking the cause of any event, the simplest answer often proves the most accurate.

Then-presidential candidate Lee Jae Myung of the Democratic Party waves to supporters after attending a hearing in his first trial on charges of breach of trust in the Daejang-dong development scandal and bribery involving Seongnam FC at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on April 29. [YONHAP]

The government’s decision to forgo an appeal in the Daejang-dong corruption case has triggered a tangle of contradictory explanations. Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho said he merely advised caution but gave no instruction. Acting Prosecutor General Noh Man-seok said he received what was effectively a proposal to drop the appeal from Vice Justice Minister Lee Jin-soo. Yet Lee claimed it was a “prosecutorial decision made independently.” The Democratic Party (DP) has since reframed the controversy as an act of “judicial restraint.”

Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho answers questions regarding the decision to drop the appeal in the Daejang-dong case during a meeting of the National Assembly’s Special Committee on Budget and Accounts on Nov. 12. [YONHAP]

The common thread in all these explanations is the claim that President Lee Jae Myung was not involved. But the public’s question is simple, echoing Occam’s razor: “Would the prosecution have dropped the appeal if not for President Lee?” No amount of legal or procedural argument can obscure that question.

When cases grow complex, one must return to a more ancient maxim: Cui bono — who benefits? The Roman orator Cicero used it to expose motive in the courtroom, just as detectives from Sherlock Holmes to Hercule Poirot and Columbo have done in fiction.

In a recent broadcast, Woo Sang-ho, senior presidential secretary for political affairs, insisted, “Why would we help Kim Man-bae? Those people are our enemies. What benefit could the president possibly gain when all the trials have already stopped?” His logic seems sound, yet the mystery deepens. If the administration had no intention of helping the Daejang-dong figures, why did the Justice Ministry block the prosecution’s appeal? And why did prosecutors ultimately back down?

The appeal’s withdrawal effectively finalized acquittals for the Daejang-dong defendants on charges of breach of trust under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes — the very charge that President Lee faces. Given that his own trial will resume after his presidency, it is hard to argue he had no stake in the outcome.

Instead of addressing this simple question, the ruling party has launched a war of narratives. Officials have accused protesting prosecutors of “insubordination” and branded criticism as “selective outrage,” pointing to past silence under former president Yoon Suk Yeol. That silence was indeed shameful, but demanding silence again now only repeats the same political coercion. The prosecution leadership’s decision to abandon the appeal exemplifies the behavior of a politically subservient institution. If prosecutors express anger at such capitulation, the DP — which has long championed prosecutorial neutrality — should be encouraging them, not condemning them.

Immanuel Kant urged that one act only according to principles that could be made universal laws. If those in power cannot apply the same standards of law and morality to themselves, silence is preferable. The question “Can your decision be applied universally?” separates justice from expedience. When it cannot be answered, law becomes the language of power. Today, the DP increasingly mirrors the old People Power Party it once opposed. The retort “You did it too” is no substitute for moral progress.

Under the Lee administration, the boundary between public and private interests in the judicial sphere has blurred. The party seeks to abolish breach-of-trust crimes and even create new “judicial distortion” offenses — legislation widely seen as serving one man’s interests. The head of the Office for Government Legislation, who previously served as Lee’s defense attorney, recently spoke in the National Assembly more like a personal lawyer than a public official. Though a proposed law to suspend trials was halted only after the president intervened, that incident reinforced public suspicion that his judicial risks remain unresolved. As with the proverbial elephant, once told not to think of it, people can think of nothing else.

Politically, the appeal’s withdrawal may grant the president a minor legal reprieve, but it has inflicted a major political loss. It has overshadowed his achievements at the APEC summit and in the ongoing Korea-U.S. tariff negotiations. More damaging still is the renewed association of the president with the Daejang-dong figures — a link that could become the first political crisis of his administration.

Acting Prosecutor General Noh Man-seok arrives at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on Nov. 12. [YONHAP]

For now, there is no evidence that the presidential office intervened. On that point, opposition calls for impeachment are neither logical nor realistic. The People Power Party cannot claim innocence either, given its role in undermining the rule of law under Yoon. Yet, before the situation worsens, President Lee should take the initiative. A clear statement such as “The decision to drop the appeal was wrong, and those responsible will be held accountable” would demonstrate a commitment to principle over personal interest.

What is needed now is firm resolve not to erode the universality of law for the sake of one individual. That is the only way to overcome the legacy of the Yoon administration, when the name of law was used to mock justice.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.