On the 13th, when a ruling recognizing the state's liability for damages was announced regarding Mr. Choi, who was wrongfully imprisoned as the suspect in the so-called 'Yakchon Five-way Intersection Murder Case' that occurred in Iksan, Jeonbuk, Attorney Park Jun-young (right), who represented Mr. Choi in the lawsuit, held a press conference in front of the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul.
[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Lawyer Park Jun-young, who participated as a civilian investigator in the Prosecutor's Office Past Affairs Investigation Team until just before the travel ban was imposed on former Vice Minister of Justice Kim Hak-ui, fired a direct salvo on the 18th at Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae, acting chairman of the Past Affairs Committee Jeong Han-jung, and Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Nam-guk, who have been criticizing the prosecution investigating the 'illegal travel ban' suspicion, saying "there was no basis for the travel ban on former Vice Minister Kim."
Famous as a specialist lawyer in retrials, having led a not guilty verdict in the retrial petition case of Mr. Choi, who was wrongfully imprisoned as the culprit of the 'Yakchon Five-way Intersection Murder Case,' he posted three related articles on his Facebook in one day, pointing out that the emergency travel ban on former Vice Minister Kim was forcibly pushed due to President Moon Jae-in's directive.
Progress of the related situation... "Minister Chu Mi-ae, it seems you are not well aware of the situation and investigation process at that time"
First, in the early morning of the day, Lawyer Park posted on his Facebook an article titled 'Progress of the related situation,' listing the sequence of events: on March 12, 2019, the Past Affairs Committee refused to extend the investigation team's activity period; on March 18, the same month, President Moon instructed a thorough truth investigation into the Kim Hak-ui case, urging the prosecution and police to stake their fate; on the same day, the Past Affairs Committee recommended extending the investigation team's activity by two months; and four days later, the emergency travel ban on former Vice Minister Kim was implemented.
He wrote, "On March 12, 2019, the Past Affairs Committee (acting chairman Jeong Han-jung) refused to extend the investigation period for past affairs cases including the Kim Hak-ui case. At that time, there was absolutely no discussion about the possibility of punishing former Vice Minister Kim. This is a common-sense judgment."
He continued, "On March 18, 2019, six days later, the Past Affairs Committee reversed its previous position due to the President's directive for a thorough truth investigation. At the time of reversal, no new evidence or facts related to the Kim Hak-ui case had been confirmed. The President's directive was the reason for extending the activity period."
Lawyer Park wrote, "On March 22, 2019, four days later, the day former Vice Minister Kim was banned from traveling abroad. Was any meaningful evidence found to discuss his punishment? You can find out by checking what the investigation team did during this period."
He added, "But if former Vice Minister Kim had left the country, the President's directive for a thorough truth investigation would have been..."
The Past Affairs Committee itself concluded that no further investigation was necessary regarding the Kim Hak-ui case, but reversed its position 180 degrees and decided to extend the investigation period immediately after the President's directive. Without any significant additional investigation or evidence collection, the travel ban was forcibly implemented solely to avoid the failure of the President's directive.
Lawyer Park stated, "There was no basis for the travel ban on former Vice Minister Kim. And because the travel was blocked under the pretext of criminal investigation, a situation was created where a request for investigation had to be made." He added, "And since it was an 'emergency' travel ban, the request for investigation had to be made immediately."
He said, "However, there was no visible charge worthy of a request for investigation. Could the video be considered evidence of 'special rape' as the police claimed? If considered bribery, could the element of quid pro quo and the statute of limitations be overcome?" He explained, "So I understand that the investigation request was based on the Yoon Joong-chun interview report, which was also the basis for the false report about 'Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-ryeol's villa sex bribery suspicion.'"
He added, "The large-scale investigation team formed by the investigation request must have been baffled. If they could not indict former Vice Minister Kim, the responsibility would fall on the investigation team, so they conducted the investigation with their lives on the line."
He continued, "Although former Vice Minister Kim received partial guilty verdicts in the second trial, the crimes he was convicted of were not problematic at the time of the emergency travel ban." He pointed out, "The investigation team, embarrassed by the poor and absurd investigation request from the truth investigation team, searched thoroughly and found charges. However, there was criticism of excessive separate investigations."
Lawyer Park sharply criticized Minister Chu Mi-ae and lawmaker Kim Nam-guk, who, not fully understanding the background, claimed as if there was no problem in the travel ban process and criticized the prosecution.
He said, "Minister Chu Mi-ae, it seems you are not well aware of 'the situation at the time of the investigation request, the content of the investigation request, and the investigation process of the investigation team.'" He urged, "Please listen carefully to the investigation team members about the situation at that time and decide whether to continue to support that investigation."
He also said, "Professor Jeong Han-jung, acting chairman of the Past Affairs Committee, please clarify the reasons for refusing the extension on March 12, the reasons for extending the activity six days later, and what changes occurred regarding the 'former Vice Minister Kim Hak-ui case' during the process, and then talk about 'retaliatory investigation.'"
He further said, "Lawmaker Kim Nam-guk, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office tried not to get involved in the truth investigation team's activities. Ms. Yoon Ji-oh was once a national hero. Did the Supreme Prosecutors' Office intervene? I was afraid to speak out because I might be accused of obstructing the truth investigation if I got involved in such matters. But now, is it reasonable to tell me to speak up?" This was a criticism of Kim's Facebook post on the 16th titled 'Seeking answers from former Prosecutor General Moon Moo-il, who was responsible at the time,' which mentioned retaliatory investigations by the prosecution and asked for answers from former Prosecutor General Moon.
Lawyer Park concluded his post with, "'MINISTRY OF JUSTICE' ? this is not it!!!"
'Frustrating'... "Even if evidence is insufficient, passing the ball to the prosecution and public trials are problematic"
Shortly after, Lawyer Park expressed his frustration in a post titled 'Frustrating,' revealing his regret about the reality where the Past Affairs Committee of the Ministry of Justice or the Prosecutor's Office Past Affairs Investigation Team unconditionally passes the case to the prosecution for investigation despite insufficient evidence of crimes.
He pointed out that recommending prosecution investigations without thorough review of investigation records or strict legal judgment can lead to public trials or unjust outcomes driven by specific political purposes.
Although Lawyer Park did not explicitly mention the former Vice Minister Kim case, considering the content of his previous posts, it can be interpreted as a veiled criticism of the Past Affairs Committee reversing its position 180 degrees solely due to the President's directive without clear evidence for re-investigation, passing the case to the prosecution, and the prosecution conducting separate investigations amid critical public opinion against former Vice Minister Kim.
He wrote, "Without thorough review of investigation records and strict legal judgment, decisions can be led by public opinion or specific individuals. And this is actually happening."
He added, "Due to the limitations of the investigation team, parts of the suspicion that are difficult to clarify can be passed to the prosecution for investigation. However, it is problematic to think that the recommendation for investigation itself is the achievement of the investigation team and committee and to blindly pass the case to the prosecution despite insufficient evidence."
He further noted, "When the prosecution invests investigative power in that area, the damage returns to the people."
Lawyer Park emphasized, "What the public expects from public institutions and experts is objective judgment based on strict evidence, not judgment based on public opinion. If not, there is no reason to give great authority to those called experts."
He expressed his feelings, saying, "Did such things only happen in the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution? Have the responsibility of public institution members and the rigor of experts been thrown away? Is it acceptable to leave such shameless acts that try to cover irresponsibility with public opinion and mistake it for justice? It is frustrating."
This can be seen as a critique of the behavior where, without additional charges or evidence for re-investigation of former Vice Minister Kim, the Past Affairs Committee members, called experts, reversed their position at the President's word, secured former Vice Minister Kim's custody, forcing the prosecution to find other charges, and exploited the critical public opinion against him.
'Defense for the punching bags'... "Because someone who knows the facts must step forward"
Meanwhile, Lawyer Park posted again on his Facebook in the morning with the title 'Defense for the punching bags.'
In the post, Lawyer Park divided the issues into six categories: ▲Regarding the first investigation (2013) ▲Regarding the second investigation (2014) ▲Regarding bribery investigations (1st and 2nd investigation processes) ▲Regarding the Prosecutor's Office Past Affairs Truth Investigation (2018, 2019) ▲Regarding the investigation team's investigation and court rulings ▲Concerns, listing the key points for each matter.
He wrote, "If I were wronged, I hope someone who knows the facts would not remain silent." He added, "It is too unfair to continue receiving criticism beyond the part one is responsible for."
He stated, "This is the reason for defending the punching bags."
Lawyer Park said, "I find it hard to accept the situation where the legitimacy and due process of the emergency travel ban are discussed on the premise that the first and second investigations were absolutely wrong."
He concluded, "I will not answer reporters' calls. Please investigate based on the contents mentioned above. I want to stop writing about former Vice Minister Kim now."
'Values we must protect'... "The illegal travel ban issue should be considered from the rule of law perspective"
Earlier, on the 16th, Lawyer Park also posted on his Facebook an article titled 'Values we must protect,' sharing his thoughts on the controversy over former Vice Minister Kim's 'illegal travel ban.'
At that time, he emphasized, "The issue of the travel ban on former Vice Minister Kim Hak-ui needs to be approached from the perspective of 'realization of the rule of law,' which is the role of public officials. Restrictions on fundamental rights must have a basis, and due process is an essential element of the rule of law."
He said, "Former Vice Minister Kim was acquitted in the first trial and partially convicted in the second trial. The charges for which he was convicted were not problematic at the time of the travel ban. The charges were found after dozens of prosecutors and investigators searched thoroughly. This was the reason for criticism of separate investigations at the time. It is a problem similar to the investigation of former Minister Cho Kuk."
Lawyer Park also emphasized, "The claim that it was an inevitable administrative process for the realization of justice is an unreasonable claim when considering the possibility of criminal punishment for the charges emphasized at the time of the travel ban request on former Vice Minister Kim. The court ruled all charges as not guilty or dismissed (due to statute of limitations)."
He pointed out that in March 2019, Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won even forged documents to request an emergency travel ban on former Vice Minister Kim, who was not subject to detention, which was clearly illegal and likely a crime such as forgery of official documents. Despite this, neither the Ministry of Justice nor Minister Chu apologized or explained, but instead tried to justify the situation by emphasizing the 'urgent and unavoidable circumstances' using critical public opinion against former Vice Minister Kim.
He expressed sympathy for some public officials who were fatefully involved without knowing these circumstances, saying, "Those public officials who had no choice but to follow illegal orders from superiors are truly pitiful."
At the end of the post, he urged, "Let's consider the former Vice Minister Kim issue from the perspective of the constitutionally guaranteed rule of law and the professional civil service system."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
