Home > Opinion > Columns

Was Im Eun-jeong and Baek Hae-ryong not the 'dream team'?

Published: 21 Nov. 2025, 00:02

Kang Ju-an

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

When President Lee Jae Myung ordered a joint investigation on Nov. 12 led by Im Eun-jeong, head of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office, and Police Lt. Col. Baek Hae-ryong into alleged external pressure to suppress a customs drug case, the Democratic Party (DP) celebrated. Supreme Council member Kim Byung-joo called it “a refreshing decision that lifts a weight off our shoulders” and said he trusted the two investigators.

Im and Baek were among the most prominent whistleblowers in the prosecution and police during the previous administration. Now they are investigating alleged wrongdoing carried out under that government. Yet a month later, discord is surfacing inside the Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office, where both are based.

Im Eun-jeong, head of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office, answers questions from lawmakers during a Legislation and Judiciary Committee meeting at the National Assembly on Oct. 23. [YONHAP]

The case centers on allegations that a customs official aided a Malaysian drug trafficking network in smuggling methamphetamine in 2023, and that when Baek’s team began investigating, pressure came not only from the prosecution and police but even from the presidential office. Baek went further, publicly claiming that former President Yoon Suk Yeol and former first lady Kim Keon Hee had used drug operations to finance an attempted insurrection.

The investigation already contains a clear point of inquiry. Baek and his former superior, Kim Chan-soo, then the chief of Yeongdeungpo Police Station, gave conflicting testimony before the National Assembly regarding alleged pressure from the presidential office. At least one of them lied. Establishing which official provided false testimony would be meaningful on its own.

Unlike the 1997 Itaewon murder case, where no external witnesses existed and it took 19 years to determine which of two U.S. soldiers stabbed Cho Jung-pil to death inside a Burger King bathroom, this case involves numerous officials. With more than 20 investigators, the puzzle should be solvable.

The core question is whether the prosecution, police and presidential office exerted pressure. A further issue is whether Baek’s allegation regarding drug operations tied to the former president will be pursued. Baek’s involvement appears essential to clarifying those claims, yet the joint probe with Im is derailed with this point.

Im argues that Baek, as a victim of alleged pressure, cannot investigate his own case. That contradicts the president’s instruction to assign Baek specifically, which was broadly understood as a directive to uncover the chain of interference.

Baek says “the real criminals in this case are at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office” and dismisses any probe by prosecutors as “self-investigation.” If one accepts Baek’s claim that he was the target of pressure, consistency would require taking seriously his claim that prosecutors themselves are implicated.

The situation is ironic. It was Im who invited Baek to the Eastern District Office. After being appointed district chief in July, Im invited Baek and Army Col. Park Jung-hoon, a whistleblower in a separate case involving a Marine’s death, despite internal opposition. Park declined, but Baek visited and said after meeting Im that he felt “comforted just by looking into the eyes of someone who went through similar hardship.”

Baek Hae-ryong, former head of the criminal division at Yeongdeungpo Police Station, speaks to reporters in front of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho District on June 12 regarding the launch of a joint investigative team probing alleged drug-smuggling involvement by Incheon Customs. [YONHAP]

But once Baek was formally assigned to the drug probe, he argued that the joint investigative team itself should be treated as a target of investigation and demanded an independent team. In what appeared to be a response, Im praised members of her own team on social media as “not only admirable but worthy of respect.” Having long described herself as a “funeral director for the prosecution” and opposed expanding prosecutors’ direct investigative powers, Im now seems to elevate the very type of investigation she had criticized.

How long their standoff will continue remains uncertain. The two figures, whose names have been closely linked to this growing scandal, must now produce results. They also need to depart from investigative practices they previously denounced. If the two, who have long operated under intense public scrutiny, continue to deliver discord rather than collaboration, the disappointment for President Lee and the DP will be significant.

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.