Active Judge Demands Investigation and Accountability for Alleged Court Surveillance

Seoul Seocho-dong Supreme Court building. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] A sitting chief judge has called for a thorough investigation into the allegations of ‘court surveillance’ cited by Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae as grounds for disciplining Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, and for holding those responsible accountable.

Chief Judge Jang Chang-guk of Jeju District Court (Judicial Research and Training Institute class 32) made this call in a post titled “Are Judges Fools?” on the court’s internal network, CourtNet, on the 25th.

Chief Judge Jang wrote, “I was horrified when I saw the reasons for the suspension of the Prosecutor General’s duties yesterday,” adding, “The prosecution’s ‘judge surveillance,’ which I had only heard about vaguely and speculated on, was revealed through the inspection results.”

Regarding the prosecution’s explanation that the report containing judges’ personal information and tendencies involved in the Ulsan mayoral election interference case and former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk’s case was prepared as ‘reference material for maintaining the prosecution,’ he said, “It is truly absurd.”

Chief Judge Jang said, “I wondered how little confidence they had in maintaining the prosecution that they tried not to obtain a guilty verdict through evidence, but rather by exploiting judges’ unconscious tendencies and habits to secure a guilty verdict.”

He continued, “A prosecutor should think about trying the case based on evidence, but to try to produce a guilty verdict by using the court’s tendencies is equivalent to saying ‘I will control the court, I will be above the court.’”

He requested, “I ask the Supreme Court Administrative Office to check what the contents of the judge surveillance documents are and how they were prepared.”

He added, “Demand accountability and, if necessary, file charges. If the prosecution cannot be trusted, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) would be acceptable.”

Finally, he said, “Please clearly declare that any attempt to receive a favorable trial will not be tolerated under any circumstances without exception.”

The day before, Minister Chu revealed that the head of the Investigation Information Policy Office at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office collected personal information and tendency data of judges handling major cases such as the Ulsan mayoral election interference and former Minister Cho Kuk’s cases, reported it to Prosecutor General Yoon, who then instructed the Anti-Corruption and Serious Crimes Division to receive it.

In response, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office explained that the ‘reference material for maintaining the prosecution’ was compiled to understand which judges are strict in admitting evidence and to deliver it to the trial division, and that the information was publicly available through legal circles and the internet.

Seong Sang-wook, former head of the Investigation Information Division 2 at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, who prepared the report, also posted on the prosecution’s internal communication network that day, stating, “The ‘serious and grave misconduct’ cited as grounds for the Ministry of Justice’s disciplinary request and suspension of the Prosecutor General was incomprehensible as a prosecutor.”

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 the prosecution,” adding, “The so-called ‘surveillance’ is about exploiting weaknesses, but is it surveillance to organize precautions about a decision-maker from the perspective of the person subject to the disposition?”

He questioned, “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 wrote, “No one, including the Ministry of Justice, ever asked me, the person responsible for preparing this document, for an explanation or inquiry,” and added, “It is difficult to understand that during the important process of filing disciplinary charges against the Prosecutor General, no verification was made despite the fact that if they had asked me even once, it would have been an explainable matter.”