[The Editors' Verdict] Choo Mi-ae vs. Yoon Seok-youl: Who Wins Is Not What Matters

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae's stated justification for trying to remove Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl is prosecutorial reform. However, Yoon has never openly opposed prosecutorial reform or acted against it, at least on the surface. Therefore, Minister Choo needs to provide a rational explanation to the public as to why prosecutorial reform cannot be achieved as long as Yoon remains in office.

Minister Choo has indeed presented grounds for why "Prosecutor General Yoon must be removed for prosecutorial reform." On the 16th, when the prison statement of Kim Bong-hyun, a key figure in the Lime Asset Management scandal, was made public, the Ministry of Justice accused Yoon by saying, "The Prosecutor General cannot rule out his involvement." The statement vividly exposes the behavior of political prosecutors who selectively investigate targets based on political interests. Since political prosecutors are the subject of reform, if Yoon is involved, Minister Choo seems to argue that it is justified to strip him of his command authority and remove him from the prosecution.

However, five days later, Minister Choo wrote on Facebook that "(whether the Prosecutor General knew or not) as a commander, he should have first expressed reflection and apology." This appears to be a step back after Yoon denied the allegations as "slander." Whether the political investigations by the prosecution were conducted with the Prosecutor General's tacit approval or orders?that is, whether he knew or not?is a very important matter. Kim Bong-hyun's revelations emphasize the need for prosecutorial reform, but they do not directly justify ousting Yoon. Attacking him by seizing on Kim Bong-hyun's disclosures without confirming Yoon's involvement raises suspicions that Minister Choo has motives beyond prosecutorial reform.

Many citizens think that prosecutorial reform is just an excuse and that Minister Choo is acting out of resentment or anxiety because Yoon keeps investigating matters unfavorable to the administration. Yoon seems to feel similarly. At the Supreme Prosecutors' Office audit on the 22nd, when asked, "If a prosecutor investigates the living powers, does that prosecutor get demoted?" he replied, "Isn't that a well-known story?"

On the other hand, Yoon also had an opportunity to clarify the situation. At the audit on the 22nd, he downplayed Kim Bong-hyun's revelations by saying, "It's just one story from someone expected to receive a heavy sentence..." If it was clear that he was not involved, he should have responded, "If true, our prosecution still has a long way to go. I will stake my position and investigate."

The same applies to the Optimus Asset Management fraud case. When Yoon was the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, his "subordinates" dismissed the case without charges. Failing to detect signs of massive fraud could be incompetence or dereliction of duty. When questioned at the audit about the background of the dismissal, Yoon evaded responsibility by saying, "It was a matter decided by the chief prosecutor, so no report was made to me." If he had said, "I will examine the issue carefully and take responsibility as a commander if there was a mistake," at least doubts about his sincerity toward prosecutorial reform would not have increased.

The minister hides her true intentions and clings to any pretext. The Prosecutor General shows behavior that seems to reject reform due to organizational selfishness. At this point, one cannot help but ponder what this fight between the two is really about. Ultimately, who wins is not important. Debating whether the minister's exercise of investigative control is illegal misses the core issue. Whether the Prosecutor General is the minister's subordinate or not is a matter for the two of them to settle in a private meeting.

The important issue is whether this society can institutionalize a system that disperses and controls the all-powerful prosecutorial authority. More importantly, it is about accumulating social experience that does not tolerate the inertia of damaging the democratic values of procedures just because the goal of prosecutorial reform is legitimate. The actions of these two are moving in the exact opposite direction.

Shin Beom-su, Head of Social Affairs Division