Choo "Multiple Confirmed Cases of Corruption" vs Prosecution "Logical Leap"

6 Key Issues and Yoon's Rebuttal Logic

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Jo] The suspension of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol's duties and the grounds for disciplinary action have been met with reactions of "unfairness" not only from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office but also from the legal community. The prevailing view is that after pressuring Yoon by stripping his personnel authority and investigative command and conducting inspections, and with Yoon refusing to resign voluntarily, Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae shifted direction toward forcibly removing him.

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae and Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl (right)
[Image source=Yonhap News]

Meeting with Media Owner Was a Reported Matter

The first misconduct fact Minister Choo mentioned on the 24th was that Yoon violated the Prosecutors' Ethical Code by meeting Hong Seok-hyun, chairman of JoongAng Holdings and owner of JoongAng Ilbo. At the time, Yoon was the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, which was investigating JTBC's defamation complaint. The Prosecutors' Ethical Code stipulates that "prosecutors shall not have private contact with parties involved in cases without justifiable reasons."

However, when Yoon and Chairman Hong met, the suspect had already been indicted. A Supreme Prosecutors' Office official explained, "It had no influence on the case whatsoever," and "It was a matter reported to the Prosecutor General immediately after the meeting." The legal community pointed out, "The Ethical Code states that if a report is made afterward, it can be an exception to the violation."

The second disciplinary reason cited was the alleged illegal surveillance order on the trial panels for the Ulsan mayor election interference case and former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk's case. In February this year, when the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's Investigation Information Policy Office uploaded a report containing personal information and tendencies of the trial panels, Yoon was accused of violating his official duties by instructing that it be forwarded to the Anti-Corruption and Serious Crime Division. However, a prosecution official said, "They only collected publicly available materials to assist in prosecution." A lawyer in Seocho-dong also dismissed the claim, saying, "Defense attorneys also conduct preliminary investigations on who the presiding and chief judges are," and "It is merely a preliminary procedure for the trial."

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae is explaining the reasons for the disciplinary request and suspension of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol regarding the inspection results at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office press room in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 24th.
[Photo by Yonhap News]

Ministry of Justice Also Unable to Explain Leak Circumstances

Minister Choo cited as the third reason that Yoon obstructed inspections related to the Channel A case and former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook's case. In April, when the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department began investigating Yoon's close aide, Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, in connection with the Channel A case, Yoon allegedly halted the inspection to obstruct it. However, both cases raised human rights issues during the investigation process. According to Supreme Prosecutors' Office regulations, if human rights concerns arise during an investigation, the inquiry falls under the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Department. Yoon's side's claims align with this.

The fourth reason was the allegation of leaking inspection information about the Channel A case to the media. Minister Choo judged that when the head of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department started investigating Prosecutor Han, Yoon leaked inspection-related information externally (breach of official duty) by telling the media that "the head of the Inspection Department unilaterally notified via text without even a verbal report." On the other hand, Yoon's side rebutted, "He only spoke to aides and does not know how the leak occurred, and the Ministry of Justice has not clarified through which channel the Prosecutor General leaked the information to the media."

On the 25th, when the unprecedented suspension of the Prosecutor General's duties took place, a heavy silence hung over the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Following the duty exclusion order by Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office immediately entered an acting duty system that day, and Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol did not come to work. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

Ministry of Justice Violated Regulations from the Start of Inspection

The fifth reason was the suspicion that Yoon violated political neutrality as Prosecutor General. At a recent National Assembly audit, when asked about his intention to enter politics, Yoon replied, "After retirement, I will slowly consider how to serve our society and the people." A Supreme Prosecutors' Office official countered, "Interpreting his response to the question 'Will you enter politics?' as a declaration of political participation is a logical leap."

The final reason was the violation of the duty to cooperate as a subject of the Ministry of Justice's inspection. The Ministry of Justice's inspection regulations stipulate that subjects must cooperate with inspections, and refusal without justifiable reasons should be handled as a separate inspection matter. Minister Choo judged that Yoon violated these regulations by refusing the Ministry of Justice Inspection Office's request for an on-site visit. Yoon's side protested, saying, "The Ministry of Justice showed a rather ambiguous attitude about formally starting the inspection and said they would provide thorough explanations if questions were sent in writing. How is that non-cooperation?" Given similar reactions from the legal community, this matter is also understood to be highly disputable. A lawyer pointed out, "Not informing what the misconduct allegations are and not giving a chance to explain is actually the Ministry of Justice violating the inspection regulations."