Kwonikwi Clarifies for Third Day "Chu Mi-ae and Cho Guk Judgment Criteria Are the Same"

"Jeon Hyun-hee's Influence" Claim by Opposition: "Legal Interpretation Is Decided by Staff"

Jeon Hyun-hee, Chairperson of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission. (Image source=Yonhap News)

[Asia Economy Reporter Moon Chaeseok] The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) issued a ruling on the 17th stating that there is no conflict of interest in the investigation into Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae's duties and the allegations of special favors for her son. In response to fierce criticism from the opposition, the commission has been explaining its position for three consecutive days.

While the commission acknowledged the possibility of a conflict of interest during the investigation of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk's family, it interpreted the current case differently. As the opposition continues to attack the commission as the "Regime's Rights Commission," the ACRC repeatedly insists that there is no difference in the basic principles.

Im Yoon-joo, Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at the ACRC, appeared on MBC Radio and stated, "The basic principle of the ruling on the conflict of interest cases involving former Minister Cho and Minister Choo is fundamentally the same."

Director Im explained, "In the case of former Minister Cho, the ruling was based on a hypothetical situation without a specific fact-checking process regarding whether there was involvement in the investigation at that time."

She added, "In contrast, in Minister Choo's case, the difference lies in the fact that the prosecution confirmed that she neither directed nor received reports on the investigation."

Regarding opposition claims that the ruling was influenced by the Democratic Party-affiliated Chairperson Jeon Hyun-hee, who took office in June, she drew a clear line, saying, "Rulings are basically decided mostly by the working-level staff below the director."

The ACRC issued the ruling on the 14th and subsequently released explanatory statements on the 15th and 16th emphasizing that "there is no difference in the basic principles of the ruling compared to the case of former Minister Cho."

Meanwhile, concerning allegations that Minister Choo's side made a complaint call requesting an extension of her son's leave, Director Im stated that only explicit demands, not simple inquiries, constitute improper solicitation.