Choo Mi-ae: "Exit Ban Is the Minister of Justice's Authority" vs Yoo Sang-beom: "Minister Only Has Emergency Exit Approval Right"

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae (left) and Yoo Sang-beom, member of the People Power Party.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] As controversy grows over procedural illegality in the process of imposing a travel ban on former Deputy Minister of Justice Kim Hak-ui, Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae has stepped forward to clarify, stating, "The authority to impose travel bans lies with the Minister of Justice."

However, Yoo Sang-beom, a member of the People Power Party, immediately rebutted Chu’s claim, saying, "The Minister of Justice does not have the authority to request an emergency travel ban."

The Ministry of Justice and Minister Chu’s explanation essentially argues that since the Minister of Justice has the authority to impose travel bans, even if there were procedural issues during Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won’s emergency travel ban request in March 2019, the legitimacy of the travel ban itself cannot be denied.

On the other hand, Representative Yoo contends that the travel ban at the time was an emergency travel ban, not a general travel ban, and legally, the request for an emergency travel ban is made by investigative agencies, with the minister only having post-approval authority. He argues that the Ministry of Justice is trying to justify the illegal emergency travel ban by confusing the issue with completely different legal provisions and employing legal technicalities.

Which legal interpretation is correct will ultimately be judged by the judiciary, which holds the final authority on legal interpretation, through prosecution investigations and court trials of those involved. Until then, controversy over the legality of the travel ban on former Deputy Minister Kim is expected to continue.

On Chu Mi-ae’s Facebook: "Travel Ban is the Minister’s Authority... 'Theatrical Investigation' Contrary to the Prosecutorial Reform Desired by the People"

Around 5 p.m. that day, Minister Chu posted on her Facebook under the title 'I hope the prosecution truly becomes the people's prosecution,' stating, "The 'commotion over the travel ban of former Deputy Minister Kim Hak-ui' following extensive media coverage is not a genuine apology for the prosecution’s 'covering for their own' investigation of former Deputy Minister Kim, but rather disparages the activities of the Past Prosecution Affairs Committee and the legitimate reinvestigation that followed."

She continued, "Furthermore, the prosecution still cannot restrain its investigative authority and behaves contrary to the prosecutorial reform desired by the people." She expressed dissatisfaction with some media reports linking her to Ministry of Justice officials involved in the 2019 travel ban of former Deputy Minister Kim, saying, "Seeing the clock turned backward and deliberately labeling those people as 'Chu-line' makes one guess the true target of this is someone else."

She added, "I cannot shake off the feeling that they are trying to conduct a typical 'theatrical investigation' by first grabbing at straws, manipulating public opinion through the media, creating social interest and attention as if there were major illegalities and organizational misconduct, and then justifying the inevitability of the investigation."

She cited the 2013 case when Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn imposed a travel ban on a witness by ministerial authority, pointing out, "If the prosecution’s logic that the issue is the suspicion of civilian surveillance and the absence of a case number is correct, then that case should have been subject to investigation."

Minister Chu emphasized, "The travel ban is the authority of the Minister of Justice," and added, "The Minister of Justice can impose a travel ban ex officio even without a request from investigative agencies." She cited Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Immigration Control Act, which states, 'The Minister of Justice may prohibit departure for a period not exceeding one month for a person deemed inappropriate to leave the country for the purpose of criminal investigation,' as the legal basis.

She also argued, "Prosecutors, as independent administrative agencies, can request travel bans, and even if the minister acted based on such a request, it is not illegal."

Minister Chu pointed out, "Even if the omission of the prosecutor general’s seal on the emergency travel ban request by the prosecutor was a document form issue, the prosecution leadership at the time did not raise this as a problem, did not cancel the request, and instead requested an extension of the travel ban while continuing the related investigation." She criticized, "If so, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office ignoring its own investigation and extension request but raising the lack of a seal on a single prosecutor’s request shifts responsibility from the prosecution leadership to an individual prosecutor."

Finally, she concluded her post by saying, "'I hope the prosecution, which promised to be the 'people’s prosecution,' will no longer disappoint the public with covering for their own at the start of the new year.'"

Three hours before Minister Chu’s Facebook post, the Ministry of Justice sent a notification message to press reporters stating, "The controversy over some procedures related to the emergency travel ban imposed following former Deputy Minister Kim Hak-ui’s late-night attempt to leave the country is merely a secondary controversy that does not affect the legality and appropriateness of the travel ban itself, considering that the Immigration Control Act grants the Minister of Justice the authority to impose travel bans ex officio."

It added, "There have been precedents where the Minister of Justice imposed travel bans ex officio without requests from investigative agencies."

Yoo Sang-beom: "Minister Has No Authority to Request Emergency Travel Ban... Confusing the Issue with Completely Different Provisions"

Meanwhile, one hour and 30 minutes after Minister Chu’s post, at 6:30 p.m. that day, Yoo Sang-beom of the People Power Party posted on his Facebook a message titled 'The Minister of Justice cannot impose (emergency) travel bans ex officio without a criminal investigation,' directly refuting Minister Chu’s claim.

Yoo stated, "Today, the Ministry of Justice explained that under Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Immigration Control Act, the Minister of Justice can impose travel bans ex officio for criminal investigations, and since there was a high risk of former Deputy Minister Kim fleeing abroad, the minister had no choice but to act ex officio without an emergency travel ban request. They claimed that not doing so would be dereliction of duty, and that the emergency travel ban was not illegal or a disregard of legal procedures. This is a misunderstanding of legal principles and facts."

He added, "The Ministry of Justice’s explanation is a futile struggle to justify an illegal emergency travel ban by using legal technicalities," and criticized, "They are making claims that undermine the rule of law themselves."

Yoo then rebutted the Ministry of Justice and Minister Chu’s explanations with five arguments: ▲They confused the issue by using completely unrelated provisions for explanation ▲The Minister of Justice cannot impose emergency travel bans ex officio ▲Emergency travel bans target criminal suspects ▲The authority to request emergency travel bans lies with the heads of investigative agencies ▲Even under Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Immigration Control Act, the minister cannot impose travel bans ex officio without a criminal investigation.

First, he said, "Emergency travel bans are based on Article 4-6 of the Immigration Control Act, and if the Minister of Justice could impose them ex officio, it should be based on the interpretation of that provision. Since that is impossible, they did not mention that provision at all and instead cited the general travel ban provision, Article 4, Paragraph 2, confusing the issue and misleadingly suggesting there was no illegality despite the lack of logical connection."

The current controversy concerns whether Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won, who had no investigative authority, illegally requested an emergency travel ban on former Deputy Minister Kim, who was not even booked, by falsifying documents. The Ministry of Justice and Minister Chu are criticized for obscuring the essence of the matter by citing general travel ban provisions instead of those related to emergency travel bans.

Yoo explained, "Article 4-6, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Immigration Control Act stipulate that 'investigative agencies' may request emergency travel bans in urgent cases and must request approval from the Minister of Justice within six hours. In other words, only investigative agencies have the authority to request emergency travel bans to efficiently respond to urgent situations where suspects attempt to flee abroad during criminal investigations, and the Minister of Justice only has approval authority."

He emphasized again, "Even though the Minister of Justice is the order issuer for travel bans, he cannot impose emergency travel bans ex officio without a request from investigative agencies."

In fact, under the Immigration Control Act, the emergency travel ban system is not one where the minister imposes a travel ban ex officio on criminal suspects, but one where investigative agencies urgently request travel bans on suspects who may destroy evidence or flee, and the minister approves afterward.

Article 4-6 (Emergency Travel Ban) Paragraph 1 of the Immigration Control Act states, "Investigative agencies may request a travel ban from immigration officers conducting departure inspections, notwithstanding Article 4, Paragraph 3, when there is reasonable suspicion that a criminal suspect has committed a crime punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for three years or more, and there is an urgent need due to reasons such as risk of evidence destruction or flight."

Paragraph 3 of the same article states, "Investigative agencies must request approval for the emergency travel ban from the Minister of Justice within six hours of making the request under Paragraph 1."

Yoo pointed out, "The Central District Prosecutors’ Office case number listed on Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won’s emergency travel ban request was closed with no charges, and the internal investigation case number listed on the approval request was a false case number. Former Deputy Minister Kim was not a criminal suspect but might be subject to future criminal investigation, and he was not even under investigation at the internal investigation stage. The Ministry of Justice also knows that former Deputy Minister Kim was only a subject of the Past Truth Investigation Committee, not an investigation target."

He added, "(The Ministry of Justice’s) excuse that the travel ban was unavoidable due to flight risk is tantamount to admitting that procedural illegality can be committed for the sake of the purpose," and criticized, "Especially, the case numbers on the emergency travel ban request and the approval request were different in prosecution office and case number. The approval was not based on the request and is also illegal. The Ministry of Justice must clarify why it approved it."

Yoo stated, "Under Article 4-6, Paragraph 1 of the Immigration Control Act and Enforcement Decree Article 5-2, the heads of investigative agencies, such as the prosecutor general or district chief prosecutor, have the authority to request emergency travel bans." He emphasized, "Although Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won was a prosecutor and thus an independent agency, he had no authority to conduct investigations directly as a dispatched prosecutor of the fact-finding team, and he had no authority to request an emergency travel ban based on a case from the Central District Prosecutors’ Office, which was not his affiliated agency (he was assigned as acting prosecutor at the Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office at the time)."

He continued, "It is clear that Prosecutor Lee illegally exercised the authority of the Central District Prosecutors’ Office chief, and the Ministry of Justice must investigate why it accepted that request despite knowing this," adding, "The Ministry of Justice’s explanation is meaningless."

He said, "Even under Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Immigration Control Act, the minister cannot impose travel bans ex officio without a criminal investigation," and pointed out, "According to that provision, the minister can impose travel bans ex officio only when necessary 'for criminal investigations,' which means a criminal investigation must have started. Even if not formally booked as a suspect, at least an investigation must be underway at the internal investigation stage."

He added, "There is no reason to impose a travel ban without a criminal investigation. Since travel bans are imposed for criminal investigations, if there is no criminal investigation, there can be no travel ban."

Yoo questioned, "If the Minister of Justice could have imposed the travel ban ex officio or emergency travel ban lawfully at the time, why did he not do so? Why did they make a prosecutor without authority request an emergency travel ban with a false case number?"

He answered, "Because ex officio travel bans were impossible."

He also objected to the Ministry of Justice citing Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn’s case as a precedent similar to this case. He said, "The Ministry of Justice claims there was a case in 2013 where the Minister of Justice imposed a travel ban ex officio," and added, "They must clarify whether that case involved imposing a travel ban for criminal investigation on someone who was not a suspect or under internal investigation, as with former Deputy Minister Kim."

Finally, Yoo said, "This is neither a misunderstanding of legal principles nor facts. It is rampant illegality," and criticized, "You cannot cover the sky with your palm. Their meaningless and unconvincing explanations are only pouring oil on the fire."