(EDITORIAL from Korea JoongAng Daily on Sept. 3)

Justice minister nominee Kim Seung-won is facing intense scrutiny over his role in an expedited clinical trial review, which has raised serious concerns about potential lobbying and improper approval processes. During his first term as a lawmaker in October 2021, Kim sent a text message to then-Food and Drug Safety Minister Kim Gang-lip at the request of an acquaintance, asking for expedited approval of Genencell's clinical trial application for a potential Covid-19 treatment. Two weeks later, the ministry approved Genencell's plan.

Further investigation revealed that a major Genencell shareholder, Yang Kang, had attempted to donate 5 million won to Kim in an apparent attempt to influence the approval process. In a calculated move, Kang sold a 14% stake in Genencell for 6.3 billion won just two days before the ministry's approval, and secured an additional 5 billion won investment through convertible bonds. The company that became Genencell's largest shareholder later publicly supported the ministry's decision.

Despite prosecutors investigating Yang and Kang on charges including promising a bribe, they suspended Kim's indictment in December 2024, recognizing potential grounds for criminal suspicion but declining to bring charges. Kim has filed a constitutional complaint, claiming the decision was unjust. He maintains he merely passed along a constituent request, but his actions raise serious questions about his suitability for the role of Justice Minister.

Given the circumstances, Kim Seung-won's confirmation hearing must thoroughly examine the ministry's handling of the clinical trial approval process and whether prosecutors appropriately decided to suspend his indictment. The ministry's decision to approve a clinical trial with potentially flawed data and the prosecutor's choice to suspend the indictment could have significant implications for public health and safety.

The hearing must scrutinize whether the approval process was handled appropriately and whether the prosecutor's decision was justified. If warranted, a separate inquiry or investigation should be conducted to ensure transparency and accountability in these matters.