Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae is announcing the disciplinary request and suspension order against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol on the afternoon of the 24th at the press room of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul.
[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] On the 25th, the Inspection Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office conducted a search and seizure of the Investigation Information Officer's Office of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.
This was to secure materials related to the illegal surveillance of the judiciary, one of the disciplinary reasons Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae cited against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol the day before.
On the same day, the Ministry of Justice stated, "We received a report from the Inspection Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office that a court-issued search and seizure warrant was obtained and executed against the Investigation Policy Information Officer's Office (currently the Investigation Information Officer's Office) of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office regarding illegal surveillance of judges."
The Ministry of Justice added, "Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae instructed the Inspection Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to investigate not only the charges currently under investigation but also whether there was additional illegal surveillance of judges through the Investigation Information Officer's Office by the Prosecutor General, as well as any misconduct related to the Prosecutor General's private purposes or illegal and improper work performance."
According to the Ministry of Justice, the Inspection Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, led by Inspection Chief Han Dong-su, secured computers and other equipment belonging to employees of the Investigation Information Officer's Office and is currently conducting forensic work.
Inspection Chief Han was appointed by former Minister Cho Kuk and has repeatedly clashed with Prosecutor General Yoon in cases such as the former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook case and the Channel A coercion attempt case. Recently, under Minister Chu's orders, he also conducted an inspection related to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's special activity funds.
The day before, Minister Chu stated that the Investigation Policy Information Officer's Office (currently the Investigation Information Officer's Office) of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office had prepared a report analyzing the tendencies of judges presiding over major cases such as the Ulsan mayoral election interference case in February and the former Minister Cho Kuk case, reported it to Prosecutor General Yoon, who then instructed the Anti-Corruption and Strong Crime Division to deliver it. She cited this as one of the disciplinary reasons against Prosecutor General Yoon.
However, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office rebutted this, stating that identifying the tendencies of judges in major cases and delivering that information to the trial division is a routine task.
Seong Sang-wook, former Investigation Information Officer 2 of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office who prepared the report at the time, also posted on the internal prosecution communication network that day, stating, "The 'serious and grave misconduct' cited by the Ministry of Justice as grounds for disciplinary action and suspension against the Prosecutor General was something incomprehensible for a prosecutor."
Former Officer Seong said, "My intention in preparing this material was not to disadvantage or harm anyone but to assist prosecutors handling major cases in smoothly maintaining prosecutions," adding, "The so-called 'surveillance' is to catch weaknesses and exploit them, but is organizing notes on points to consider about a decision-maker from the perspective of the person subject to the decision 'surveillance'?"
He continued, "If a police officer tells a colleague, 'Prosecutor A is strict about sexual crime warrants,' or a senior university student tells a junior about 'Professor B's exam tendencies,' is that surveillance?"
He also said, "No one, including the Ministry of Justice, ever asked me, the person responsible for preparing the document, for an explanation or inquiry about this document," and added, "If they had asked me even once, it was a matter I could have sufficiently explained, but it is difficult to understand that no verification was made during the important process of filing disciplinary charges against the Prosecutor General."
This is interpreted as criticism that the inspection of Prosecutor General Yoon did not even follow basic procedures.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
