Incheon Drug Investigation Pressure Scandal: The Collapse of the System and the Journey Toward Accountability

The hidden pressure allegations behind the Yoon Suk-yeol administration’s ‘war on drugs’ and the tragedy of actor Lee Seon-gyun: A look at the current state of South Korea’s judicial system through two intertwined cases

Introduction

The “Incheon Customs Drug Investigation Pressure Allegation” that surfaced during the Yoon Suk-yeol administration will be remembered as a critical turning point revealing deep structural vulnerabilities within our judicial system beyond a mere isolated incident. This case starkly illustrates how the government’s strong policy stance of a “war on drugs” can clash with the constitutional value of investigative independence. At the center of the case is Chief Inspector Baek Hae-ryong, who exposed external pressure while uncovering a massive drug organization, and Jo Ji-ho, then Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Commissioner, along with senior police leadership accused of exerting pressure.

This article meticulously traces the entire process from the incident’s emergence, the formation of a joint investigation team, to calls for a special prosecutor, cross-analyzing the claims of key figures involved. It argues that this case is not a simple individual deviation but a systemic failure stemming from politicization of police leadership, arbitrary application of internal regulations, and comprehensive supervisory shortcomings. By juxtaposing this scandal with the tragic case of actor Lee Seon-gyun, which shocked society around the same time, it offers a multifaceted examination of how systemic flaws violate individual rights and erode public trust in law enforcement.

Part 1: The Prelude to the Scandal – Drug Organization Arrests and the First Warning Signs

1.1 Uncovering the Transnational Drug Organization

In July 2023, everything began with a tip from a Chinese woman who sought help from the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Police Station’s violent crimes unit, claiming she was threatened during methamphetamine use. Chief Inspector Baek Hae-ryong, then head of the detective division, immediately formed a dedicated team and launched an investigation. Considering the drug distribution network’s cell-like structure, the team employed a typical “bottom-up investigation technique,” sequentially arresting lower-level dealers and narrowing the net upward.

Through this process, the existence of a large international drug smuggling organization composed of Malaysian and Chinese members was revealed. They used sophisticated methods such as disguising shipments as wooden cutting boards priced at 40,000 won each, while the market price was only 4,000 to 5,000 won. Although the initial methamphetamine seizure was 74 kg, Chief Inspector Baek claimed this was just the tip of the iceberg, estimating the total smuggling volume intended was 300 kg, enough for 10 million people to use simultaneously. This was one of the largest drug smuggling attempts in South Korea’s history.

1.2 Customs Connection: A Critical Turning Point

In September 2023, as the investigation peaked, the case took a new turn. Arrested members testified that “customs officers at Incheon Airport personally guided us during multiple past drug smuggling attempts.” This testimony transformed the case from a simple drug smuggling incident into an allegation of systemic corruption within the nation’s key gateway, the customs office. To verify the credibility of these statements, the investigation team conducted five on-site inspections at Incheon International Airport, during which the suspects identified specific customs officers who aided their smuggling. Chief Inspector Baek’s team confirmed that between January and February 2023 alone, the organization passed through the airport’s electronic customs clearance system 12 times without issue, which they asserted would have been impossible without internal assistance.

1.3 The “Yongsan” Call: Direct Pressure Allegations

In October 2023, as the investigation team prepared a major press briefing including the customs employee involvement, Chief Inspector Baek claimed he received a call from Jo Byung-no, then a police superintendent at the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, who was not in the investigation command chain. Jo allegedly said, “Investigating the Customs Service could look like a fight between government agencies,” “It burdens national governance,” and “Are you trying to help the opposition?” urging Baek to delete customs-related content from the press release. Furthermore, Baek said his direct superior, Kim Chan-soo, then head of Yeongdeungpo Police Station, called him to relay an order to postpone the briefing, stating, “Yongsan (the Presidential Office) knows about this and is taking it very seriously.” This became the most explosive evidence suggesting the source of pressure might be the Presidential Office.

1.4 The Cost of Resistance: Retaliatory Transfers and Disciplinary Actions

After resisting these pressures, Baek claimed he was notified that the case would be transferred to another department, causing a ten-day suspension of the investigation. When the pressure allegations became public through the media, Baek was reassigned from detective chief to a frontline precinct chief, widely regarded as a demotion. The police leadership defended this personnel move as a justified action due to Baek’s violation of the “Police Investigation Public Relations Regulations” by proceeding with a press briefing without prior approval. Baek, however, is contesting the disciplinary action as “retaliation” and “abuse of supervisory authority” through an administrative lawsuit.

The development of this case offers important insights. Although the Yoon Suk-yeol administration declared a strong commitment to the “war on drugs,” allegations that pressure was applied to downscale an unprecedented drug bust exposing institutional corruption reveal a serious gap between declared policy goals and the actual priorities of power.

Part 2: Dissecting the Pressure – Key Actors and Conflicting Narratives

2.1 The Whistleblower’s Outcry: Baek Hae-ryong’s Public Testimony

In July 2024, the case escalated into a nationwide scandal when Chief Inspector Baek testified under oath at the personnel hearing for Jo Ji-ho, then candidate for Police Commissioner. Baek detailed the phone calls from Jo Byung-no and Kim Chan-soo, directly accusing Jo Ji-ho of orchestrating a “retaliatory personnel move.” Baek steadfastly maintained his claims through multiple media interviews and press conferences, harshly criticizing the prosecution for obstructing the investigation and condemning the joint investigation team as a “self-investigation” aimed at covering up the truth.

2.2 Official Defense: Police and Customs Leadership’s Rebuttal

Police Commissioner Jo Ji-ho has consistently denied the pressure allegations, maintaining that the core issue was Baek’s violation of the “public relations regulations.” While acknowledging that Jo Byung-no’s call was inappropriate, Jo emphasized that he had already disciplined Jo Byung-no with a demotion. Kim Chan-soo, accused of delivering the pressure message and later promoted to the Presidential Office, denied reporting any related matters to the Presidential Office during a parliamentary hearing.

2.3 The Prosecution’s Ambiguous Role: Obstruction or Prudence?

Baek also criticized the prosecution sharply, alleging that the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office twice rejected search warrants for Incheon Customs, allowing critical evidence to be destroyed. He further accused the prosecution of neglecting follow-up actions despite being aware of the drug organization’s existence early in 2023, enabling their escape abroad. Baek pointed to Shim Woo-jung, then head of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office and current Prosecutor General, as the apex of responsibility.

2.4 The Link: Connections to Other Political Scandals

The political impact of this case is amplified by its links to other major power-related corruption allegations. Jo Byung-no, accused of pressuring Baek, appears in recorded phone calls with Lee Jong-ho, former CEO of Black Pearl Invest, who is suspected of lobbying for clemency in the “Chae Sang-byeong death investigation pressure allegation.” Lee was convicted in the “Deutsche Motors stock manipulation case,” involving First Lady Kim Keon-hee, with whom he is known to have close ties. Notably, the “Kim Keon-hee Special Prosecutor Act” explicitly includes investigating allegations of improper interference in state affairs through figures like Lee Jong-ho and Jo Byung-no, thereby bringing the Incheon drug investigation pressure allegations under its legal scope.

Table 1: Key Figures in the Incheon Drug Investigation Pressure Allegation

Part 3: Tangled Threads – The Lee Seon-gyun Case and the Crisis of Investigative Legitimacy

3.1 Investigation Under the Spotlight: The Actor Lee Seon-gyun Case

In October 2023, amid the government’s “war on drugs,” an internal investigation into actor Lee Seon-gyun’s alleged drug use began. Media reports hinted at his identity through initials, and he was soon formally charged. Throughout the investigation, Lee consistently claimed he was unaware the substance was a drug and insisted he was a victim who was extorted for 350 million won. Forensic tests by the National Forensic Service all returned “negative.” Nonetheless, the police publicly summoned him three times and conducted an intense 19-hour overnight interrogation just four days before his death.

3.2 Media Trial: Information Leaks and Sensationalism

The tragedy of the Lee Seon-gyun case stems not only from the police’s excessive investigation but also from irresponsible media coverage. The investigation was reported before formal charges were filed, and sensitive information such as internal police reports and private phone conversations were indiscriminately leaked to the media without verification. This amounted to a de facto “media trial.” Public broadcaster KBS, in particular, faced severe criticism from the cultural and artistic community for airing private conversations unrelated to drug allegations.

3.3 Aftermath: Investigation into Investigators

Lee’s sudden death on December 27, 2023, sparked massive public outrage against the police and media. Cultural figures, including director Bong Joon-ho, formed a solidarity coalition demanding a thorough investigation into the source of information leaks and a call for media self-reflection. Under public pressure, investigations were launched, resulting in one police officer from Incheon Police Agency and one investigator from Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office being prosecuted for official secrets leakage.

The cases of Baek Hae-ryong and Lee Seon-gyun represent two sides of the same coin regarding politicized police investigations. Baek’s successful investigation was suppressed due to inconvenient truths for the administration, while Lee’s investigation was amplified to align with the “war on drugs” policy, reducing the suspect’s rights to a secondary concern. One investigation was distorted for concealment, the other for show.

Part 4: Legal and Institutional Fault Lines

4.1 Legal Analysis of Abuse of Authority Charges

Article 123 of the Criminal Act punishes abuse of official authority, but Supreme Court precedents interpret its requirements very strictly. It will be legally challenging to prove that Jo Byung-no, who was not in the investigation command chain, had “general official authority” over Baek’s briefing or that the “Yongsan directive” was a binding official order.

4.2 The Dilemma of Disclosure of Suspect Facts

Article 126 on disclosure of suspect facts has long been practically obsolete. In reality, internal police and prosecution guidelines with broad exceptions for “public interest” or “public concern” prevail. Following the Lee Seon-gyun case, several so-called “Lee Seon-gyun Prevention Acts” have been proposed and are currently under parliamentary review to address these legal gaps.

4.3 Weaponization of Regulations and Lack of Oversight

The disciplinary basis against Baek for violating the “public relations regulations” was revealed to have no prior disciplinary precedents, suggesting selective application to retaliate against a whistleblower. This demonstrates how internal rules can be weaponized by those in power. Since the pressure originated from police leadership, internal audits were ineffective, and external supervisory bodies like the National Police Commission were largely powerless.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Investigation Public Relations Regulations in Major Countries

Part 5: The Way Forward – Recommendations for Reform and Accountability

5.1 Ensuring Investigative Independence

To secure political neutrality of investigative agencies, the current advisory-only National Police Commission should be elevated to a collegiate administrative body with real authority. Additionally, the personnel and budget independence of the National Investigation Headquarters must be legally guaranteed to block undue external interference at its root.

5.2 Reforming Investigation and Public Relations Practices to Protect Human Rights

The swift passage of the “Lee Seon-gyun Prevention Act” is urgent to eliminate discretionary judgment by investigative agencies and establish clear legal standards. Drawing from Germany’s Press Council model, establishing an independent body for media self-regulation to strengthen reporting ethics and prevent human rights violations should also be considered.

5.3 Strengthening Whistleblower Protection and the Need for Independent Investigation

The Baek Hae-ryong case clearly shows the chilling effect of retaliation against whistleblowers. An independent reinvestigation of his disciplinary process and substantial enhancement of whistleblower protections are necessary. Finally, since this case involves allegations spanning the police, prosecution, and Presidential Office, entrusting the investigation to any single agency is difficult. The prosecution-led joint investigation team cannot escape criticism of being a “self-investigation,” making the introduction of an independent special prosecutor indispensable for a fair and thorough inquiry.

Conclusion

The “Incheon Drug Investigation Pressure Allegation” began with a police officer’s whistleblowing but fundamentally exposes a systemic crisis in South Korea’s judicial system. This case and the tragedy of actor Lee Seon-gyun are not separate but connected by the shared issue that rule of law can be undermined and individual rights sacrificed for political purposes. The path to overcoming this crisis is clear. In the short term, an independent special prosecutor team must thoroughly uncover the truth without exception. In the long term, fundamental institutional reforms such as empowering the National Police Commission, legislating against disclosure of suspect facts, and strengthening whistleblower protections must follow. This is not merely about punishing a few individuals but a societal responsibility to rebuild a trusted judicial system.