The Background Behind Chu Mi-ae's Five Consecutive Investigative Directives Targeting Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol

Loss of investigation command over Lime Lobby case including incidents involving self, family, and associates
Legal circles respond "unprecedented"... interpreted as de facto 'resignation pressure'
Concerns over recurrence of forced investigation command in 'prosecutor-media collusion' case, fearing backlash
First gauge will be the authenticity and reporting status of 'prosecutor lobbying testimony' revealed by Kim Bong-hyun

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae. [Photo by Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Contrary to initial expectations, the content of the investigation directive issued by Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae included not only the 'Lime lobbying suspicion' case but also cases involving Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol's family and close associates.

Depending on the results of this investigation, either Minister Choo or Prosecutor General Yoon will face a 'do-or-die battle' where it will be difficult to avoid a fatal blow.

According to the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution on the 20th, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office excluded prosecutors and investigators suspected of lobbying from the investigation team following Minister Choo's directive the previous day, and began forming an investigation team to probe the lobbying suspicions involving politicians and prosecutors related to Lime, as well as allegations of cover-up and downplaying of the investigation.

Within prosecution circles, since there was a revelation through the prison statement of former Star Mobility Chairman Kim Bong-hyun (46, indicted in custody) that a prosecutor who received alcohol entertainment participated in the investigation team, the dominant expectation was that measures would be taken to prevent Prosecutor General Yoon from being involved in the Lime investigation.

However, Minister Choo mentioned two cases involving Yoon's wife Kim Gun-hee, a case involving his mother-in-law, and a case related to the older brother of Yoon Dae-jin, deputy head of the Judicial Research and Training Institute, who is known as one of Yoon's closest aides and nicknamed 'So-yoon (Small Yoon)'.

All cases related to Prosecutor General Yoon among those already investigated or under investigation by the prosecution were included in the scope of the investigation directive, which has drawn reactions from the legal community calling it unprecedented.

This expansion of cases excluding Prosecutor General Yoon by Minister Choo is being interpreted as a de facto pressure for Yoon's resignation.

Since the investigation of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk, Prosecutor General Yoon, who became the 'public enemy' of the government and ruling party, has been under constant pressure to resign. Minister Choo is evaluated to have turned Yoon into a 'figurehead prosecutor general' by exercising personnel authority and investigation directive authority.

However, Prosecutor General Yoon has maintained his position by responding cautiously rather than reacting rashly. He still has more than nine months left in his term.

In this situation, by bringing in even cases where judicial processing of related parties has already been completed to re-examine whether Yoon was involved or if the cases were swept under the rug, it is interpreted as an attempt to find flaws in Yoon's fairness and neutrality.

Regarding this, a Ministry of Justice official said, "It seems to be a matter of logical consistency." He added, "In a situation where the minister exercises investigation directive authority related to Lime, it would be strange to leave those cases (involving the prosecutor general's family and close associates) untouched claiming there are no issues of objectivity or fairness, while only this case (Lime) is problematic... so it seems the directives were issued simultaneously."

What Minister Choo likely considered before issuing the investigation directive was the precedent of the first investigation directive in early July related to the 'media collusion' case.

At that time, Minister Choo supported Seoul Central District Prosecutor Lee Sung-yoon, who was pushing the investigation with the conviction that Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon was an accomplice of former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae, and stripped Prosecutor General Yoon of his investigation directive authority.

However, several months after the indictment of former reporter Lee, the failure to prove Prosecutor Han's charges has made it highly likely that the directive will be concluded as an overreach.

Therefore, Minister Choo may have considered the backlash if she exercised investigation directive authority limited to the Lime case and the investigation results revealed that the related suspicions were baseless.

Including multiple cases simultaneously can be seen as a strategic move to gain justification if any illegal orders or inappropriate conduct by Prosecutor General Yoon are revealed in any of them.

For now, the first gauge to determine whether this investigation directive was appropriate will be whether, as former Chairman Kim revealed in his prison statement, there were actual testimonies regarding the 'prosecutor lobbying' suspicion during the prosecution investigation process, and whether this was reported to the investigation leadership or Prosecutor General Yoon.