Baek Gwang-hyun (left), Nam Wook (right)

On the 16th, the day the National Assembly held a hearing for the "Special Committee for Truth Finding on Allegations of Fabricated Indictments by the Political Prosecution of the Yoon Suk-yeol Administration" handling the Daejang-dong case, the attention of the political circles and media was divided between the inside and outside of the hearing room.

While lawyer Nam Wook's testimony garnered attention inside the hearing room, the audio recording released by Baek Gwang-hyun at the National Assembly Communication Center outside the hearing room caused a stir. In particular, this recording is of significant interest as it strongly refutes the "fabricated indictments by the political prosecution of the Yoon Suk-yeol administration" frame that the Democratic Party and the special committee have been presenting.

During the hearing that day, Nam Wook testified to the effect that the second Daejang-dong investigation team had proceeded with its investigation with the goal of indicting President Lee Jae-myung.

He stated that Senior Prosecutor Jeong Il-kwon, who was in charge of the investigation at the time, said, "Our goal is one. Go down and think about it carefully," and that he understood this to effectively mean the goal was to indict Lee Jae-myung.

Furthermore, he argued that his statements regarding Kim Yong and Jeong Jin-sang were not something he would have naturally brought up himself, highlighting the possibility of pressure and inducement during the second phase of the investigation.

The essence of Nam Wook's testimony at the hearing was that "key testimonies were formed or strengthened during the goal-oriented investigation process of the second investigation team."

However, the audio recording released by Baek Gwang-hyun at a press conference at the National Assembly Communication Center on the same day pointed in the opposite direction.

Baek explained that this release was "to reveal the reality of the inadequate and concealed investigation and the manipulation of testimonies by the first Daejang-dong investigation team."

The argument is that the issue lies not with the second investigation during the Yoon Suk-yeol administration but with the first investigation phase during the Moon Jae-in administration.

If there was manipulation, it suggests that key testimonies were not newly fabricated during the second investigation, but rather that core testimonies from the first investigation may have been deleted, modified, or downplayed during the drafting of the records and the compilation of investigation results.

The first audio file released by Baek clearly points to one specific area.

It refutes the claim by the first investigation team, which initially investigated the Daejang-dong case during the Moon Jae-in administration, that "at that time, no criminal suspicions related to Lee Jae-myung and Jeong Jin-sang were found."

The Nam Wook appearing in the recording had already provided testimony related to the main thrust of the case during the first investigation, and had even mentioned Lee Jae-myung and Jeong Jin-sang by name. Furthermore, the recording contained statements to the effect that when the assigned prosecutor attempted to record this in the official document, he was summoned to a higher authority, came back down, and deleted the content, repeatedly.

This is why Baek Gwang-hyun characterizes this audio recording as "direct refuting material."

The claim is that key testimonies did not originate from the second investigation but already existed during the first investigation phase.

If this point is true, the essence of the problem changes completely.

While the frame so far has been "the prosecution of the Yoon Suk-yeol administration fabricated testimonies and indicted," the frame presented by Baek suggests that "the first investigation team during the Moon Jae-in administration filtered out testimonies that had already emerged at the record-drafting stage and diverted from the main thrust in the final investigation results."

In other words, it raises the question of whether manipulation or distortion occurred not during the second investigation but during the process of the first investigation, the drafting of records, and the announcement of investigation results.

It is precisely for this reason that Baek Gwang-hyun's audio recording is drawing attention as material that directly refutes the allegations of "fabricated indictments by the political prosecution of the Yoon Suk-yeol administration."

The second audio file points in the same direction.

The issue at hand is the sequence of the testimony regarding "money to be given to the brothers."

Nam Wook has recently changed his stance in court and at hearings, claiming that the related testimony was at the prosecution's instigation. However, based on the released recording, Baek claims that Nam Wook brought up the explanation first.

According to Baek's side, Nam Wook in the recording stated that it was a logical flow for the discussion of a large sum of money to follow after a smaller sum had been exchanged, and that the prosecution matched this with Yoo Dong-gyu's testimony.

If this is the case, then Nam Wook's narrative presented at the hearing, which claimed that "the prosecution first created a scenario and then fit Nam Wook's testimony to it," is bound to be significantly shaken.

Ultimately, the hearing that day was a venue where two conflicting narratives collided.

Nam Wook testified to the effect that "the second investigation team pushed for testimonies with the goal of indicting Lee Jae-myung," while Baek Gwang-hyun presented an audio recording to the effect that "key testimonies had already emerged during the first investigation, and if there was manipulation, it was then."

The testimony inside the hearing room and the release of the audio recording outside the hearing room have directly clashed.

If prosecutor Park Sang-yong created a symbolic scene inside the hearing room during the inter-Korean remittance hearing, then Baek Gwang-hyun emerged as the central figure in the frame competition outside the hearing room during the Daejang-dong hearing.

Baek has indicated that he possesses the full recording file, which exceeds an hour, and has not ruled out the possibility of further releases.

This is interpreted not just as a public relations battle but as pressure to re-examine the original investigation records, investigation reports, and the process of announcing the final investigation results from that time.

If the special committee truly aims to uncover the substantive truth, the question is now simple.

When, where, and by whom were the earliest testimonies that were closer to the truth of the Daejang-dong case suppressed? Baek Gwang-hyun's audio recording directs that arrow not at the second investigation but at the first investigation.

However, there are points to note at the current stage.

Baek's claims are based on a portion of the released recording and its interpretation. Therefore, further verification is needed regarding the overall investigation process at the time, the original statements, the investigation command structure, and the actual content of the final announcement.

Nevertheless, the reason this audio recording is attracting attention is clear.

It is because it raises the issue of shifting the direction of the "fabricated indictments by the political prosecution" allegations from the second investigation to the first investigation.

The most critical phase of manipulation was not during the Yoon Suk-yeol administration's prosecution but during the first investigation of the Moon Jae-in administration – this is the sharpest question posed by Baek Gwang-hyun's audio recording.