Chief Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon (left) and Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jung Jin-woong. [Image source=Yonhap News]
[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] On the 29th, regarding the claim by Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-ung of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office Criminal Division 1 that a physical altercation with Chief Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon occurred during a search and seizure because Han obstructed the process, Han’s side issued a rebuttal stating, “There was no obstruction of the search and seizure or any attempt to destroy evidence.”
Han’s side released a statement titled “Response from Chief Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon’s Side Regarding Deputy Chief Jeong Jin-ung’s Position” in the afternoon, declaring, “There was absolutely no obstruction of the search and seizure. There was also no refusal to comply with the search and seizure.”
Earlier, Deputy Chief Jeong stated that after Han filed a complaint against him for ‘abuse of authority’ with the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office and requested an inspection, he could not accept Han’s unilateral claim that he committed ‘abuse of authority’ and planned to file a counter-complaint for false accusation and defamation, believing Han’s actions were intended to obstruct the investigation.
Deputy Chief Jeong also denied assaulting Han, explaining that the two fell to the floor between the sofa and table while trying to secure Han’s mobile phone.
In response to Deputy Chief Jeong’s claims, Han’s side argued, “The object of the search was not the mobile phone but the Usim chip,” and “Chief Prosecutor Han expressed willingness to comply with the search and seizure and had already placed the mobile phone with the Usim chip inserted on the table.”
Han’s side described the situation as follows: “With permission from Deputy Chief Jeong to make a call to his lawyer, Han was sitting on the sofa opposite Deputy Chief Jeong and Prosecutor Jang Tae-hyung, with a table between them. While attempting to unlock the phone under their watch, Deputy Chief Jeong suddenly raised his voice, crossed the table, grabbed Han’s body, pushed him, and tried to seize the phone.”
Han’s side stated, “Unaware of the reason, Han asked, ‘Why are you doing this?’ Deputy Chief Jeong then lunged over Han’s body on the sofa, pushing him down to the floor beneath the sofa. Deputy Chief Jeong climbed on top of Han’s body on the floor, grabbed his arms and shoulders, pressed his face with his arm, and in that state, Han handed over the phone.”
They continued, “Han did not assault Deputy Chief Jeong or resist at all during this process. If he had, Deputy Chief Jeong would have framed it as obstruction of official duties. Han was assaulted unilaterally and handed over the phone to Deputy Chief Jeong.”
Han’s side emphasized that Deputy Chief Jeong gave an incomprehensible reason for his actions.
Han’s side claimed, “Deputy Chief Jeong shouted, ‘You should unlock it with Face ID, why are you entering the password? I know you use Face ID,’ making an argument that is difficult to understand logically.”
They added, “I (the lawyer) protested, saying, ‘Didn’t Deputy Chief Jeong allow the use of the phone? To unlock it and make a call, you have to enter the password, right?’ but Deputy Chief Jeong repeated the same claim, ‘I know you use Face ID. Why don’t you use Face ID and instead enter the password?’”
Face ID is a biometric authentication system that recognizes the user’s face, a technology applied to the iPhone X.
However, Han’s phone at the time was set to unlock by entering a password, not Face ID, and the personnel participating in the search and seizure confirmed this status at Han’s request, according to Han’s side.
Han’s side pointed out, “Whether unlocking by password or Face ID, you have to unlock the phone to use it. We still do not understand what Deputy Chief Jeong meant. There is no difference whether unlocking is done by Face ID or password.”
Han’s side also denied Deputy Chief Jeong’s claim that Han attempted to destroy evidence and that Deputy Chief Jeong tried to stop it.
Han’s side said, “The claim that it was to prevent an attempt to destroy evidence is absurd. With many investigators and staff watching, how could Han be erasing anything? If Han had done so, it would have been grounds for arrest. Would Han have behaved like that?”
They added, “How can an attempt by the suspect to unlock the phone to call a lawyer during the search and seizure be considered an attempt to destroy evidence, obstruction of the search and seizure, or refusal to comply?”
Han’s side stated, “This is the detailed account witnessed by many. It is absurd to say anywhere in this that Han obstructed the search and seizure.”
Han’s side claimed that there is footage showing the investigation team effectively acknowledging the situation and apologizing.
Han’s side said, “After this incident, there is footage of Han strongly protesting to Deputy Chief Jeong and the investigation team, the investigation team unable to deny it, the investigation team effectively acknowledging the situation, some members of the investigation team who participated in the search and seizure personally apologizing to Han, and the rest of the investigation team, excluding Deputy Chief Jeong, stating they did not participate in Deputy Chief Jeong’s actions.”
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
