Former Presidential Aide Seeks Bail, Claims Government Has 'Collapsed'

Kim Dae-ki, the former Presidential Chief of Staff, who faces charges related to the alleged illegal diversion of funds for the presidential residence relocation, has pleaded for his release on bail. Appearing at his first trial and bail hearing, Kim asserted that the current Yoon Suk Yeol administration has already 'collapsed,' thereby eliminating any risk of evidence tampering.

“

I don't know if this case needs to go to the extent of personal restraint after living 70 years and seeing many cases. The special prosecution claims there is a risk of evidence tampering based on my position, but the Yoon Suk Yeol government has already collapsed.

Kim is accused of directing the illegal diversion of approximately 2 billion won from the Ministry of the Interior and Safety's budget between May and July 2022. Prosecutors allege that he facilitated and approved the reallocation of these funds without proper procedures, interfering with the official duties of public servants involved in budget and accounting processes. The prosecution contends that Kim's position and influence warrant his continued detention, citing concerns about potential evidence tampering.

“

The defendant, who has worked in public service for 36 years, has no risk of flight, and most of the evidence has been secured, so there is no evidence to tamper with.

During the hearing at the Seoul Central District Court, Kim's defense team echoed his plea, stating that a 36-year public servant like Kim has no flight risk and that most evidence has already been secured. However, the special prosecution team countered, highlighting that the defense's refusal to agree to all witness testimonies indicates a continued risk of evidence tampering. The court identified the core issue as determining whether the budget was illegally diverted or properly reallocated, depending on whether the Ministry of the Interior or the Presidential Secretariat held primary management authority.

“

Given that the defendant's side is not agreeing to the testimonies of all witnesses, we cannot say there is no risk of evidence tampering. The defendant's position and influence were considered, which is why the arrest warrant was previously issued.

The trial is significant as it marks the first case indicted by the special prosecution team since its formation. The court also directed the prosecution to specify precisely who exercised their authority, how it was abused, and against whom, in relation to the charges of abuse of power.

“

Whether the budget was illegally diverted or used as intended may depend on whether the Ministry of the Interior or the Presidential Secretariat was the managing authority.