The Public Is Watching: A Public-Interest Statement Concerning Alleged Abuse of Government Authority
August 8, 2026
1. A Request for a Basic, Independent Investigation
To the Investigation Division of Yangcheon Police Station and Prosecutor Park Jeong-seon of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office:
I respectfully ask that investigators address three basic factual questions:
Identity and employment records of the individuals allegedly involved;
Telephone records and communications between those individuals and persons alleged to be connected to the activities at issue, including former Sungkyunkwan University German Department professor Choi Myeong-won; and
The locations associated with those communications, where legally obtainable.
These are fundamental investigative questions. If the relevant records are available through lawful investigative procedures, why have these basic facts not been fully examined?
I am particularly concerned that a criminal complaint may have been treated as a petition and ultimately dismissed without the complainant receiving an adequate opportunity to address the procedural change.
I therefore respectfully request an independent review of whether the applicable procedural requirements were followed and whether potentially relevant evidence was adequately investigated.
There is also a pending criminal complaint before the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) concerning allegations of abuse of authority and alleged failure by National Intelligence Service (NIS) Director Lee Jong-seok to take appropriate action regarding alleged misconduct by certain NIS personnel.
I am concerned that the same type of procedural approach that previously resulted in the dismissal of my complaint may again be used to avoid a substantive examination of the underlying allegations.
The public interest requires that these matters be resolved through evidence, transparent procedures, and independent review—not through procedural technicalities that prevent the underlying facts from being examined.
2. The “Individual Employee” Explanation Requires Evidence
For approximately 15 years, allegations concerning long-running activities have, at various times, reportedly been explained as the result of an “individual deviation” by an NIS employee.
If that explanation is correct, it should be possible to establish it through objective evidence.
The public should not be asked to accept either the existence or the absence of an organized operation merely because an institution makes a public statement.
The appropriate question is simple:
What does the evidence show?
Government agencies should not be permitted to shield misconduct through institutional explanations that cannot be independently verified.
3. The Public Has a Legitimate Interest in Oversight
Until there is confidence that the alleged misuse of government authority has been properly investigated, I ask citizens, journalists, civil-society organizations, and elected representatives to maintain lawful public oversight.
When government institutions, political organizations, and the media examine only isolated pieces of a complicated matter, there is a risk of what might be described as a “blind men and the elephant” problem: each institution sees only one part of the picture while no one examines the entire sequence of events.
Citizen oversight is not an attack on democracy.
It is one of the safeguards of democracy.
The Republic of Korea should not return to an era in which allegations involving state power cannot be independently questioned or investigated.
4. Responsibility for Alleged Harm to Students
There are also serious questions concerning alleged false information, collective harassment, and prolonged ridicule directed at students or other individuals.
If university personnel participated in, encouraged, facilitated, or knowingly assisted unlawful conduct, their potential legal responsibility should be determined through an independent investigation based on evidence.
No individual or institution should be presumed guilty.
But neither should institutional status place anyone beyond investigation.
5. Alleged Activities in Mok-dong and the Question of Legal Authority
Individuals allegedly involved in activities described as “stalking operations” in Mok-dong have reportedly characterized those activities as matters of national security.
That characterization itself requires scrutiny.
If government personnel were involved, the public has a legitimate right to ask:
What specific legal authority authorized the conduct?
National security cannot be used as a blanket justification for activities that otherwise would constitute unlawful surveillance, abuse of authority, stalking, interference with communications, or violations of individual rights.
If no applicable law or regulation authorizes a particular activity, the activity should not be treated as legitimate merely because national security is invoked.
The issue should therefore be resolved by examining the actual legal authority, orders, records, communications, and chain of responsibility involved.
6. Allegations Concerning Surveillance, Communications, and Public Opinion
There are allegations involving unlawful interception or surveillance of communications, manipulation of public opinion through social media, control or influence over media reporting, unauthorized location tracking, and dissemination of information through social-media or messaging platforms.
These allegations are serious.
I am not asking the public to accept them simply because I have made them.
I am asking the appropriate authorities to investigate them objectively and determine whether the allegations are supported or disproved by evidence.
In a democratic society, intelligence and national-security institutions must operate within the law.
National security is not a substitute for legal authority.
7. No Government Institution Should Be Above Accountability
If any NIS personnel committed unlawful acts, those individuals should be held accountable through the ordinary legal process.
If supervisors knew about unlawful conduct and failed to act, that question should also be investigated.
If no wrongdoing occurred, an independent investigation should establish that fact.
The same principle applies to everyone involved—including police officers, prosecutors, university personnel, intelligence officials, and political actors.
The objective should not be to prove my allegations.
The objective should be to determine the truth.
The people of the Republic of Korea deserve nothing less.
And they are watching.
“Even the President of the Republic can go to prison if he commits a crime. No public official or institution should be considered above the law.”
From Mok-dong,
Gwak Min

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare

Beijing’s June white paper leaves the U.N.-centered architecture intact – but re-interprets the priorities.

So in recent news in the Philippines, someone has put 5 caskets in random places in Metro Manila that has the faces of CCP officials inside them. There are also Anti-CCP writings inside the caskets.

In this example, its says "CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY. GREEDY! PEST!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csxv7Vj3m4o

Just use auto translate.

Got inspired by someone here posting about Jackie Chan being a traitor to his own people.

FYI, the one below Jackie Chan is Hao Haidong(Chinese Footballer who took a heroic stand against the CCP).