[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Prosecutorial Investigation Deliberation Committee (Investigation Deliberation Committee) will be held on the 24th to review the appropriateness of the investigation and prosecution of former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae and Han Dong-hoon, a research fellow at the Judicial Research and Training Institute (Chief Prosecutor), who were accused in connection with the 'media-prosecution collusion' suspicion.
According to the legal community on the 14th, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office decided to hold the Investigation Deliberation Committee at 2:00 PM on the 24th in the large conference room on the 15th floor and requested both the applicant side and the investigation team to submit written opinions by 20 minutes before the committee convenes.
This Investigation Deliberation Committee is convened at the request of former VIK CEO Lee Cheol, who claims to have been threatened by former reporter Lee.
Meanwhile, the day before, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office Citizens' Committee held a sub-committee meeting and resolved not to refer the Investigation Deliberation Committee requested by former reporter Lee.
Also, on the same day, the schedule for the sub-committee meeting regarding the Investigation Deliberation Committee requested by Chief Prosecutor Han has not yet been finalized.
◆Possibility of Lee Dong-jae and Han Dong-hoon submitting written opinions and appearing in person at the deliberation date= However, Article 13 of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office regulation 'Guidelines for the Operation of the Prosecutorial Investigation Deliberation Committee,' which is the basis for establishing the Investigation Deliberation Committee, allows related parties to prepare written opinions and deliver them to the current committee members on the deliberation date. Article 14 stipulates that if the related parties who submitted written opinions wish, they can have the same opportunity to present their opinions as the chief prosecutor and the applicant who requested the Investigation Deliberation Committee at the current committee meeting. Therefore, it is highly likely that former reporter Lee and Chief Prosecutor Han will submit written opinions and appear in person to present their views at the current committee meeting held on the 24th.
In this case, the Investigation Deliberation Committee held on the 24th is expected to witness intense disputes between former CEO Lee and the investigation team, and between former reporter Lee and Chief Prosecutor Han, over whether this case is a 'media-prosecution collusion' incident in which the media colluded with the prosecution to threaten the suspect under investigation, as claimed by former CEO Lee, or a 'power-media collusion' incident in which a whistleblower with a fraud record conspired with ruling party politicians to carry out a 'plot.'
◆Outcome likely to depend on presence or absence of evidence supporting conspiracy relationship= The judgment of the current committee members is expected to depend on the evidence presented by the prosecution at the deliberation date. It is true that the contents of the recorded conversations disclosed so far are insufficient to recognize a conspiracy relationship between former reporter Lee and Chief Prosecutor Han. In fact, a recording in which Chief Prosecutor Han said he was 'not interested (in the Yoo Si-min suspicion)' during a meeting with Channel A reporters was also made public through the media.
Therefore, how much evidence the prosecution can present among the items obtained through search and seizure and mobile phone forensic analysis that can be seen as proof that former reporter Lee threatened former CEO Lee (even through a third party such as whistleblower Ji Mo) or that supports the fact that former reporter Lee conspired with Chief Prosecutor Han is likely to play a decisive role in the judgment of the current committee members.
On the other hand, the case in which former reporter Lee and civic groups filed complaints against whistleblower Ji and Choi Kang-wook, leader of the Open Democratic Party, for obstruction of business is also under investigation by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. However, since search and seizure or investigation of the accused has not been properly conducted yet, and the investigation team views this case as media-prosecution collusion, evidence related to the link between Ji, Choi, and MBC, which first reported this suspicion, cannot be presented at this current committee meeting. This means that former reporter Lee and Chief Prosecutor Han will have to fight under considerably unfavorable conditions when persuading the current committee members.
◆Investigation Deliberation Committee conclusion inevitably influences prosecution investigation= If the current committee issues an opinion to 'continue investigation and prosecute' former reporter Lee and Chief Prosecutor Han, the prosecution investigation framed as 'media-prosecution collusion' is expected to accelerate rapidly. Also, the case in which whistleblower Ji and Choi were accused of obstruction of business is likely to be concluded as 'no charges.'
Conversely, if the current committee issues an opinion to 'stop investigation and not prosecute' the two, the prosecution will inevitably face a deep dilemma over whether to accept the committee's opinion. This may also give momentum to the investigation of Choi and others, whose investigation intentions have been questioned.
If the opinions of the current committee members are evenly split without consensus, the prosecution is expected to continue the investigation while bearing the burden of uncovering the truth through balanced investigations of both former reporter Lee and Chief Prosecutor Han, and whistleblower Ji and Choi.
◆Decision by majority vote of 15 members excluding the chairperson The current committee is composed of 15 members randomly selected from the Investigation Deliberation Committee members, who are experts from various fields of society including the legal community, academia, media, civic groups, and culture and arts.
The chairperson of the Investigation Deliberation Committee presides over the meeting as the chair of the current committee but cannot participate in questioning or voting.
The current committee members receive and review written opinions of up to 30 pages on A4 paper submitted by the chief prosecutor and applicants before the deliberation date, listen to the oral presentations of both sides, and may ask questions if they have any concerns.
Afterward, in a closed deliberation, if the members' opinions coincide, a deliberation opinion document is prepared based on the unanimous opinion.
If the members' opinions differ, the decision is made by a majority vote of the attending members.
Afterward, the deliberation opinion document is prepared and a copy is sent to the chief prosecutor. Although the chief prosecutor is not obliged to follow the deliberation opinion, they must respect it.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
