Kim Min-seok stood before the Supreme Council at the National Assembly on November 6 and apologized — publicly, on the record, for an allegation his own party’s investigation could not substantiate. The Democratic Party leader said he was sorry to party members hurt during the August leadership race, Alpha Economy reported, closing a chapter that began when he accused his rival of a secret three-way alliance with Shincheonji.
The apology is the most formal step yet in a retreat that has unfolded over four days. At a closed caucus meeting on November 3, Kim acknowledged the party’s internal probe had found no evidence supporting the “anti-Lee Jae-myung, separatism, Shincheonji three-way secret alliance” claim he raised against former leader Jung Chung-rae during the August 17 national convention. On November 5, appearing on the party’s YouTube broadcast, he said he was “sorry and grateful” to members, adding that raising the Shincheonji issue had been uncomfortable from the start, and so was the investigation.
Party investigators find no evidence linking Jung to Shincheonji
- Party investigators found no evidence linking Jung Chung-rae or any specific politician to Shincheonji, undercutting the central accusation of Kim’s convention campaign.
- Kim’s November 6 apology at the Supreme Council went beyond the closed-door contrition pro-Jung lawmakers had demanded.
- Jung Chung-rae is framing the outcome in stark terms: the members and Jung are innocent, Kim is guilty — leaving the feud unresolved inside the party.
How the accusation unraveled, step by step
The sequence matters. During the August leadership contest, Kim — then a candidate — alleged that a three-way secret alliance involving anti-Lee Jae-myung forces, separatism, and Shincheonji was operating around his rival Jung. Kim won the race. The party then formed a member-verification task force to investigate allegations of collective entry into the party by Shincheonji adherents.
The task force came back without the proof. Investigators confirmed no clear evidence that Jung or any specific politician had allied with Shincheonji, according to Alpha Economy. That finding set off the apology sequence: the closed caucus admission on November 3, the YouTube broadcast on November 5, and the public statement at the November 6 Supreme Council meeting.
Here is the exact wording Kim used at the Supreme Council: “In the process of raising strong concerns and warnings about religious interference in politics during the last convention, I once again offer my apologies to everyone who was hurt and to party members who love our party.”
Jung Chung-rae’s counterattack: apologize in public, not in hiding
Pro-Jung lawmakers had pushed for a public position and responsible action, arguing that an apology at the level of a closed members’ meeting was not enough. Jung himself had drawn that line sharply.
“Rather than hiding and saying sorry at a closed caucus meeting, he should apologize publicly to the hurt members,” Jung said, adding that the act that brought the party disgrace, confusion and serious danger was that act itself.
Jung has since gone further, declaring that “in the end, the members and Jung Chung-rae are innocent, and Kim Min-seok is guilty.” That statement, reported by Alpha Economy, leaves an ember of conflict burning inside the party even as the formal apology lands.
The timeline that brought Kim to the podium
| Date | Action | Forum |
|---|---|---|
| August 17 convention | Kim alleges three-way secret alliance against Jung | Leadership election campaign |
| November 3 | Kim admits no evidence supports the claim | Closed caucus meeting |
| November 5 | Kim expresses regret to members | Party YouTube broadcast |
| November 6 | Kim issues formal public apology | Supreme Council, National Assembly |
What the record does not show is any finding of Shincheonji involvement by Jung. The task force’s investigation into collective membership by Shincheonji adherents produced no substantiated link between the religious organization and a specific politician. The allegation that shaped a leadership contest now stands, by the party’s own review, without evidentiary support.
Why the apology had to be public
The distinction Jung and his allies drew was between private contrition and public accountability. Kim’s closed-door apology on November 3 did not satisfy them; the demand was for a stance beyond the level of a closed members’ general meeting, paired with responsible measures. The November 6 Supreme Council statement was Kim’s answer to that demand.
Whether it settles the matter is a different question. Jung’s “guilty” verdict — delivered in his own words after the apology — signals the pro-Jung wing intends to keep the ledger open. The party’s own investigation cleared the members and found nothing on Jung; the political cost now sits with the man who made the claim and won the chairmanship on it.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
