[Reporter’s Notebook] Will Minister Choo Mi-ae, Prosecutor General Lee Seong-yoon, and Judge Kim Dong-hyun Take Responsibility for Han Dong-hoon’s Investigation Results?

Seokjin Choi, Head of the Legal Affairs Team

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The prosecution, which has been investigating the ‘collusion between prosecution and media’ case, indicted former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae on the 5th but ultimately failed to include the conspiracy relationship with Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon in the indictment.

The prosecution blamed the prolonged investigation on Prosecutor Han, saying, “Prosecutor Han did not provide the password for his mobile phone, preventing us from starting forensic analysis,” and stated their intention to continue the investigation.

However, despite the prosecution’s explanation(?), there is a prevailing view around the prosecution that “it will be difficult to indict Prosecutor Han.”

On that day, the prosecution stated, “We plan to handle the case after clearly clarifying Prosecutor Han’s involvement through additional investigation,” but this is merely a situation where they cannot avoid stating their position, and it is believed that the possibility of uncovering a conspiracy between former reporter Lee and Prosecutor Han during the additional investigation is low.

We still need to wait and see, but if the prosecution fails to secure substantial evidence even after completing the forensic analysis of Prosecutor Han’s mobile phone and additional summons, it will not be a minor issue.

First of all, what is clear is that the statements related to this investigation, which were publicly disclosed through the internal computer network by Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-ung of the Criminal Division 1 at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, who is responsible for this investigation, have turned out to be false.

Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong posted a message titled ‘A Letter Regarding the Investigation of the Channel A-MBC Report Related Case’ after Chief Prosecutor Jeong Hee-do of the Cheongju District Prosecutors’ Office publicly questioned on the internal network on the 7th of last month, saying, “Many frontline prosecutors view the current investigation team as conducting an unfair and biased investigation” and asked the Criminal Division 1 at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office (headed by Deputy Chief Jeong Jin-ung), which is investigating the Channel A-related suspicions, to respond publicly.

In that message, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong stated, “We have secured numerous important pieces of evidence during the investigation process and are substantially approaching the material truth.”

If Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong’s statement referred only to former reporter Lee and reporter Baek, excluding Prosecutor Han, then there is nothing more to say.

However, everyone knows that the reason this case attracted national attention was due to the nature of the case as ‘collusion between prosecution and media.’

If the ‘prosecution (檢)’ is removed from the ‘collusion between prosecution and media’ frame, which was imposed with near certainty by the whistleblower, MBC that reported the suspicions, pro-government politicians who assisted the whistleblower, and the investigation line at the Central District Prosecutors’ Office, this case can only be seen as a personal deviation of a reporter caused by misguided journalistic ambition.

Moreover, since the objective was not achieved, it remains a failed attempt, raising questions about whether detention is justified.

Therefore, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong’s statement at the time should naturally be interpreted as meaning “numerous important pieces of evidence have been secured” and “we are substantially approaching the material truth of the ‘collusion between prosecution and media.’”

If so, where did all those pieces of evidence go that they could not even include a single line about Prosecutor Han’s conspiracy with former reporter Lee in the indictment, even though they indicted Prosecutor Han separately from former reporter Lee on that day? Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong’s explanation is needed.

Of course, it is presumed that the message was written out of necessity to clarify the investigation team’s position as criticisms of bias in the investigation arose even within the prosecution and this situation was disclosed through the media.

Since it is highly unusual for the person responsible for conducting an important investigation on site to mention whether there is evidence or not during an ongoing investigation, it seems very likely that Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong posted the message not on his own will but under orders from higher-ups.

However, incidents such as the ‘physical struggle’ that emerged during the seizure of Prosecutor Han’s mobile phone SIM card recently, and the ‘hospitalization photo’ provided to the media through official channels by the investigation team immediately after the incident, raise doubts like “Is there really something?”

Whether the investigation team can indict Prosecutor Han after additional investigation, and if indicted, whether they can prove guilt in court, remains uncertain.

However, what is clear is that if the prosecution fails to find evidence of Prosecutor Han’s conspiracy even after additional investigation and decides not to prosecute, or if they prosecute but Prosecutor Han is acquitted in court, there will be people who must take responsibility.

In ordinary cases, the prosecution is not subject to criticism for not prosecuting a suspect due to insufficient evidence, even if they investigated on suspicion. Similarly, if the prosecution indicts but the court’s judgment differs, it is the same.

But this ‘collusion between prosecution and media’ case is different.

From the beginning of the investigation, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office investigation team proceeded as if they were certain of the conspiracy between former reporter Lee and Prosecutor Han.

Ignoring the opinions of the Criminal Division staff at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office that it seemed difficult to establish a conspiracy between former reporter Lee and Prosecutor Han, they acted as if Prosecutor Han was already targeted.

When a frontline district chief prosecutor disobeys the Prosecutor General’s orders and rebels, it should be considered that they have staked their position.

It is a natural course for Seoul Central District Chief Prosecutor Lee Sung-yoon to take responsibility if he fails to indict Prosecutor Han or if Prosecutor Han is acquitted after indictment.

The same applies to Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae.

Minister Choo ignored Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl’s decision to convene a professional investigative advisory group to hear opinions, citing ‘possible controversy over the establishment of the crime,’ and even stripped Prosecutor General Yoon of his investigative directive authority to prevent him from interfering in the ‘collusion between prosecution and media’ investigation.

This was the second time in constitutional history that a Minister of Justice issued an investigative directive to the Prosecutor General.

Legal professionals familiar with the legislative history of the relevant provisions know that the Minister’s investigative directive authority over the Prosecutor General under the Prosecutors’ Office Act is not intended for the Minister to direct and intervene in investigations but rather to act as a shield protecting the prosecution from political influence and, if intervention is unavoidable, to do so only through the Prosecutor General.

Contrary to this legislative intent, when the Prosecutor General was sidelined through a specific case investigative directive and power was given to Chief Prosecutor Lee Sung-yoon, it is appropriate for Chief Prosecutor Lee to share responsibility for the outcome.

There is one more person to remember.

That is Judge Kim Dong-hyun, the head judge in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, who issued the arrest warrant for former reporter Lee, stating the collusion with Prosecutor Han as a given fact.

Judge Kim issued the arrest warrant for former reporter Lee on the 17th of last month, stating, “There is substantial evidence to suspect that the suspect attempted to threaten the victim by connecting with a high-ranking prosecution official to achieve a specific reporting objective.”

At the time, this reason for issuing the warrant was considered “unusual” even among judges. Legal reporters mocked, “So they want an arrest warrant for Prosecutor Han too. Are they (the courts) ready to issue it?”

Especially since even the prosecution, in the arrest warrant application, only stated that detention was necessary to clarify the conspiracy with Prosecutor Han and did not exclude the possibility of former reporter Lee acting alone, Judge Kim’s mention of “substantial evidence to suspect conspiracy” raised suspicions that it was a political rather than a legal judgment.

The same question can be asked as to Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong. What exactly were the ‘collusion between prosecution and media’ evidences that Judge Kim confirmed?

Since such substantial evidence to suspect conspiracy was already secured when the investigation team applied for former reporter Lee’s arrest warrant, why did the prosecution fail to include even a single line about the conspiracy between the two in the indictment nearly 20 days later?

The ‘presumption of innocence’ principle, which states that suspects or defendants must be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a final judgment, is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, especially in criminal law.

However, in 2020 South Korea, it is regrettable that the Minister responsible for the rule of law, the head of the largest prosecution office who is a leading candidate for the next Prosecutor General, and the judge at the largest court who decides on the suspect’s detention, all seem to act as if Prosecutor Han is presumed guilty in this case.

I want to ask Minister Choo Mi-ae, Chief Prosecutor Lee Sung-yoon, and Judge Kim Dong-hyun.

“If Prosecutor Han is not prosecuted or is acquitted, will you take responsibility? How?”