Kim Seung-won Evolves 'Did Not Know Because I'm a Liberal Arts Major' Remark... 'Apologize for Inadequate Expression'

Confirmation Hearing Preparation Team Issues Official Clarification

"Meant a Lack of Expertise… Not Shirk Responsibility"

Aftershocks of Ruling Party's 'Genencel Data Fabrication' Battle

Minister of Justice nominee Kim Seung-won, who is at the center of suspicions regarding lobbying the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS), ultimately bowed his head over controversy surrounding remarks made during his confirmation hearing.

On the 15th, nominee Kim's confirmation hearing preparation team released an official statement apologizing for the nominee's remarks made during the previous day's National Assembly hearing. The preparation team stated, "Regardless of the reason, we sincerely apologize for causing misunderstandings with inadequate expressions."

Previously, nominee Kim mentioned during a hearing response, "I don't know the performance of the treatment because I am a liberal arts major." As criticisms continued from some quarters that this was an irresponsible attitude for a public official candidate, it appears he stepped in to diffuse the situation a day later.

The preparation team drew a line, stating that the remark was not intended to evade responsibility. They explained that determining the efficacy of medicines or the authenticity of experimental data submitted by companies is the role of the MFDS as a professional institution, and it was difficult for the nominee personally to recognize in advance whether a specific company's internal data had been fabricated. They added, "It meant that due to a lack of expertise in that field, we were unable to examine the details carefully."

This controversy began during the National Assembly confirmation hearing held the previous day from a question by People Power Party lawmaker Kim Min-jeon. Rep. Kim pressed the nominee by pointing out that the fact that Genencel submitted fabricated animal testing data to the MFDS is explicitly stated in the court ruling.

In response, nominee Kim replied that he could not know the performance of the new drug due to his major, defending that the nature of the petition he delivered to the MFDS at the time was intended to "look into procedural unfairness." Nominee Kim's position was that he recognized the matter as having gone through legitimate procedures, such as verification by officials in charge at the Evaluation Institute and approval of clinical trials by an advisory committee.