Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae is attending the 'Extraordinary Cabinet Meeting' held at the Government Seoul Office in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the 23rd. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@
[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Public interest is growing regarding the timing and method of the prosecution's investigation into Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae.
Minister Choo is under investigation over allegations related to her son Seo Mo (27)'s military service. However, the "Regulations on Prohibition of Disclosure of Criminal Cases" (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), enacted during former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk's tenure last year, have completely closed off the prosecution's investigation status on his successor, Minister Choo. Contrary to public interest, the investigation is inevitably proceeding in a "black box" manner.
On the 23rd, inside and outside the prosecution, the prevailing view is that the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office, which is investigating this case, is more likely to conduct a written investigation rather than summoning Minister Choo for questioning, and may conclude the investigation before Chuseok.
A prosecution official said, "We cannot confirm anything regarding the method or timing of Minister Choo's investigation," adding, "According to the regulations protecting portrait rights, information about the attendance of persons involved in the case cannot be disclosed at all."
The regulations prohibiting disclosure of criminal cases, created by former Minister Cho last year and subsequently applied during family investigations?criticized as "tailored regulations for Cho Kuk"?are also proving effective in Minister Choo's case. Currently, a constitutional complaint has been filed against these regulations on the grounds that they infringe on the public's right to know and freedom of the press.
Under past investigation guidelines, public figures such as high-ranking officials at the vice minister level or above, and members of the National Assembly could have their summons date and time, return time, and charges disclosed under certain conditions. Additionally, filming of summons or return scenes outside the prosecution office building was exceptionally permitted.
However, with all these regulations changed, it is highly likely that in Minister Choo's case, the fact of the prosecution's investigation will only be disclosed after it has concluded.
Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the currently enforced regulations states that "attendance information such as the date and time of appearance and return of persons involved in the case shall not be disclosed."
A former prosecution official A, who was in charge of public relations, said, "It is true that adjustments were necessary due to side effects of disclosing the suspect's summons appearance at an undeveloped stage of the investigation," but added, "In cases with high public interest, the information blackout can lead to speculative reporting, which is another side effect that must be considered."
Despite the newly revised regulations, the fact that some suspects' summons schedules are leaked and disclosed depending on the prosecution's intentions is also pointed out as a problem.
Moreover, the consolidation of public relations duties, which were previously divided among deputy prosecutors or chief prosecutors in charge of investigations at each prosecution office, into specialized public relations officers at each prosecution office has led to an increase in speculative reports whose accuracy has not been verified, which is also criticized as an issue.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
