Kim Nam-guk coin investment, already an object of envy among fellow lawmakers

“I heard that you were passionate about coin investment even before you became a member of the National Assembly.”

“He said that he lives like a baby and buys coins with all his spare money.”

This is a message from several young politicians about the independent lawmaker Kim Nam-guk, who was caught up in the ‘coin investment controversy’. Apart from the illegal possibility, it was a well-known rumor in the political world that Congressman Kim actively used virtual assets as a means of investment. In particular, past remarks by Rep. Jang Gyeong-tae and Choi Kang-wook of the Democratic Party (Democratic Party) raise the probability that Rep. Kim’s investment in virtual assets was an open fact within the Democratic Party.

Rep. Jang Gyeong-tae and Choi Kang-wook became controversial with past remarks that seemed to have known about Congressman Kim’s coin investment for several years. On August 20, 2021, Rep. Jang mentioned the return on investment in virtual assets by Rep. Kim at the National Human Rights Commission’s National Assembly personnel hearing. During a break, Rep. Chang told a fellow member, “Nam Guk hyung is the best. Namguk hyung’s property is over 1 billion. No, that Bitcoin, Bitcoin,” he said, but the video and audio remained as records and were recalled.

Circumstances that seem to have been known about the coin investment of Rep. Kim Nam-guk from several years ago were recently revealed. [Dong-a DB ]
I heard that virtual assets should be regulated…
Rep. Choi Kang-wook made a sexual harassment remark during a video conference of the Democratic Party on April 28 last year, and the case of being beaten by public opinion is being re-examined. A media reporter who interviewed Congressman Choi last year delivered Congressman Choi’s explanation at the time on his Facebook page on May 12, and the situation in which Congressman Choi was aware of Congressman Kim’s investment in virtual assets in advance was revealed. Choi’s remarks, as reported by the reporter, are as follows.

“Kim Nam-guk was interested in financial technology, so he invested in coins. He sometimes brags to me that the price of coins has risen, and he also said that he was upset that someone else’s went up while he sold his own. However, in a situation where people did not come to the online meeting quickly that day, Kim Nam-guk also put up a fixed screen and did not show his face. Coincidentally, I thought of it. Wouldn’t it be difficult for him to focus on the meeting while investing coins at the same time? So, ‘why are you like that? Are you joking right now?” Originally, I had to accurately say it was a coin, but I was also an old person, so I expressed it as a meme.”

Regarding this, there are criticisms that if the party knew of Congressman Kim’s investment in virtual assets, it should have been properly restricted. This is because during the former government, when Congressman Kim was in the midst of investing, the Democratic Party’s basic position and policy on virtual assets was ‘regulation’. The ‘Act on the Reporting and Use of Specific Financial Transaction Information’ (Special Act), which was amended at the time led by the Democratic Party, allowed only real names to be used when trading virtual assets in Korea. As a result, in 2021, several small and medium-sized virtual asset exchanges that did not receive the bank’s real-name account confirmation were closed, and virtual assets designated as ‘investment caution items’ were delisted one after another, resulting in a surge of investor dissatisfaction. On May 11, Professor Shin Yul of the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at Myongji University said, “(To the public), virtual asset investment is recognized as an act that needs to be regulated, but behind the scenes, there is strong moral criticism that they made money by avoiding the law.”

Friendship-type ‘Biho’ vs scream-type ‘Jaseong’

Representative Lee Jae-myeong (third from the right in the front row) and Democratic Party lawmakers attended the ‘reform members’ meeting’ held at the National Assembly on May 14. [Dong-a DB ]
Some members of the Democratic Party, such as the pro-myung (pro-Lee Jae-myung) first-choice group ‘Like-hoe’, showed an attitude that seemed to protect Rep. Kim Nam-guk, raising controversy once more. Rep. Hwang Un-ha posted on his Facebook page on May 14, “After the prosecution has set a prey, it abuses its investigative power as if it were a game, and if it frames and attacks a person by swindling with certain media, the target person has no way to avoid disgrace. There is no,” he posted. Rep. Kim, who is suspected of receiving illegal political funds as virtual assets, was defined as a victim of an “unruly prosecutor’s investigation.” On the same day, Rep. Yoo Jung-ju and Yang Won-young also made remarks dismissing the theory of responsibility raised toward Rep. Kim and Representative Lee Jae-myeong after the ‘reform assembly’.

It is analyzed that such a response by lawmakers belonging to the Like-Hoe is at a distance from public opinion. As a result of a poll conducted on May 13-15 by Newsis commissioned by the National Research Group and Ace Research, which are specialized in public opinion polls, 57.6% of the respondents said ‘Congressman Kim Nam-guk’s coin suspicion먹튀검증‘. It should be revealed quickly through the prosecution’s investigation’ (sampling error ±3.1%p at the 95% confidence level).

Even within the Democratic Party, it is pointed out that ‘covering my family’ is centered on the non-myung (Lee Jae-myeong) system. In particular, dissatisfaction erupted over the opposition of some of the party leadership to the National Assembly’s Ethics Special Committee (Ethics Committee) at the reform meeting. Rep. Kim, who had previously left the Democratic Party, is no longer subject to fact-finding at the party level, but the party leadership is lukewarm about filing a complaint with the Ethics Committee, which is another way to hold accountability. Rep. Lee Won-wook and Park Yong-jin, who represent the screaming world, appeared on the air on May 15, the day after the Reform Movement, and openly expressed regret, saying, “The ethics committee complaint was omitted from the final resolution.” Rep. Lee Sang-min also said on his Facebook page, “The Democratic Party’s resolution to ‘reform and reflect on the re-establishment of the party’, I did not expect it, but it is also empty.” strongly criticized.

Ethics Committee Disciplinary Effectiveness? “well”
The Democratic Party, as if conscious of public opinion, made a sudden decision to file a complaint with Rep. Kim to the Ethics Committee on May 17. However, questions are still raised about the effectiveness, such as whether the Ethics Committee will actually punish Rep. Kim and what level it will be. Of the 39 disciplinary proposals submitted to the Ethics Committee of the 21st National Assembly, only one case was actually punished. Another variable is that the Ethics Committee does not have the right to compulsory investigation, and that the protection of Rep. Kim, centered on pro-Myeong factions, may continue.

Experts are also skeptical about what kind of decision the Ethics Committee will make. Yoon Tae-gon, head of the political analysis department at The Moa, said, “The nature of the Ethics Committee itself is ambiguous, so there is a good chance that it will end in a weak disciplinary action at the level of warning.” The Democratic Party may try to embrace it.” Jang Seong-cheol, director of the Public Opinion Center, also said, “Rep. Kim Ki-hyun was the only person who was disciplined by the Ethics Committee in the 21st National Assembly, and that was only suspended from attending the National Assembly on the 30th.” ”he explained. However, director Jang added, “This is the first time that the ruling and opposition parties have filed a complaint, and we have no choice but to be conscious of the general election at the time, so we will not be able to come to a conclusion that is completely out of the public eye.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *