Park: "Silent during the judicial farming investigation, but changed attitude during former Minister Cho Kuk's investigation"
"Silent even when LH case and Gumi 3-year-old girl case were reported as if live"
Also criticizes former Human Rights Director Hwang Hee-seok, who was silent during the 'deep-rooted evils' investigation
[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Amid controversy over the disclosure of suspect information triggered by investigations into the ‘Kim Hak-eui illegal deportation’ case and reports on the ‘Blue House planned investigation’ allegations, Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye stated on the 8th that it is difficult to accept the criticism of ‘double standards’.
Minister Park made this rebuttal while arriving at the Ministry of Justice Government Gwacheon Complex in the morning, explaining why he had defended the leak of Special Inspector Lee Seok-su’s inspection contents during the Park Geun-hye administration.
Minister Park said, “I have consistently pointed out issues regarding the disclosure of suspect information.”
He added, “There was a time when I seemed to defend the leak by Special Inspector Lee, but at that time, there was an issue of surveillance against this special inspector, creating a dynamic of ‘interference with inspection’ versus ‘leak of inspection.’ I have been called ‘double standards,’ but I hope people do not compare the two cases superficially.”
Following recent reports by certain media outlets alleging that Lee Gwang-cheol, Blue House Civil Affairs Secretary, introduced Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won to Cha Gyu-geun, Director of Immigration and Foreign Policy Headquarters, or that the ‘Blue House planned investigation’ aimed to cover up the Burning Sun scandal, which surfaced police collusion in 2019, by highlighting the former Vice Minister Kim Hak-eui case and the late Jang Ja-yeon case, Minister Park pointed out issues with the disclosure of suspect information and ordered the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office to verify the facts.
Earlier, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, which had instructed all prosecution offices nationwide last month to ‘strictly comply with regulations on the prohibition of disclosure of criminal case information,’ recently ordered the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, investigating the ‘false report and leak’ related to Yoon Joong-chun’s interview, and the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, investigating the former Vice Minister Kim’s ‘illegal deportation’ case, to verify the facts.
In response to this situation, some in the legal community have raised concerns that as the prosecution’s investigation heads toward Secretary Lee Gwang-cheol and others at the Blue House, Minister Park might be pressuring the investigation team under the pretext of suspect information disclosure.
Meanwhile, lawyer Park Jun-young, who was active in the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s Past Affairs Investigation Team, posted articles on his Facebook on consecutive days, criticizing the selective problem-raising by Minister Park and the government and ruling party regarding the disclosure of suspect information.
In a post titled ‘The Light and Shadow of Emphasizing Principles’ posted the previous day, Lawyer Park said, “In power-related investigations, the disclosure of suspect information is a problem, but so is the lack of attention. I understand the prosecution’s position regarding such exclusive reports to some extent. Considering the structure of public opinion formation in our society, where investigations and trials are cited and interpreted according to factional logic and various interests, it can be seen as an effort to secure momentum for power-related investigations.”
He stated, “Among the past affairs investigations by the prosecution, there was a comprehensive case involving ‘disclosure of suspect information.’ I am ashamed to say that I was part of that investigation team.”
He continued, “However, even during the investigation, there were quite a few irresponsible leaks related to past investigation contents, reported in the form of ‘exclusive’ articles.”
He said, “These reports are now subjects of investigation. However, at that time, the ruling party, Ministry of Justice, and Blue House did not express any regret to the investigation team because the reports were favorable to the current administration.”
Lawyer Park added, “Looking back, during the judicial corruption investigations in 2017 and 2018, investigation situations were reported almost live by the media. Even then, the ruling party, Ministry of Justice, and Blue House remained silent regarding the disclosure of suspect information, for the same reason.”
He continued, “Everyone knows how those who were silent reacted during the investigation of former Minister Cho Kuk in 2019. Their sudden strong opposition after a long silence is a ‘contradiction’ reflecting political stance and factional logic.”
He said, “Recently, reports on the LH case investigation are released almost daily. The National Police Agency’s National Investigation Headquarters is also actively informing the public about the investigation process. This is disclosure of suspect information. Yet, there are no voices pointing out violations of the prohibition on disclosure of suspect information.”
He added, “The recently problematic ‘Gumi, Gyeongbuk 3-year-old girl case’ is also being reported almost in real-time regarding investigation progress. The Kim Hak-eui former Vice Minister investigation team, which was launched at the end of March 2019 and operated for about two months, also disclosed a great deal of investigation content.”
Lawyer Park pointed out, “Thus, the ‘principle’ of prohibiting disclosure of suspect information is applied inconsistently, sometimes silent, sometimes emphasized, depending on various interests, without principle.” He emphasized, “While live broadcasting of power-related investigations is problematic, measures are needed for investigations conducted in the dark.”
At the end of his post, he requested, “I hope the Minister of Justice also considers the contradictions in emphasizing principles and the realistic practice of reform.”
On the same day, Lawyer Park posted another article titled ‘Information on Disclosure of Suspect Information for Constructive Discussion.’
In the post, he revealed, “I participated in the main investigation of the prosecution’s past affairs investigation from around November 2018 to May 2019, aiming to ‘confirm the actual situation of disclosure of suspect information and derive institutional improvement measures,’” then cited a report explaining the background of addressing disclosure of suspect information in the investigation.
The report contents he disclosed include: “Although there is a clear legal provision in the Criminal Act punishing disclosure of suspect information by investigative agency personnel, there is a widespread perception that this provision is effectively obsolete,” and “If the disclosure of suspect information regulation is no longer necessary contrary to its original purpose, it should be boldly deleted to allow comprehensive reporting and coverage, thereby enhancing the public’s right to know. However, the current situation is that investigative agencies disclose information under the name of public relations when convenient, and use the disclosure of suspect information regulation to avoid media coverage when burdensome.”
Lawyer Park once again criticized the contradictory attitudes of current government officials.
He said, “As mentioned in the article I shared yesterday, the Ministry of Justice’s Prosecution Past Affairs Committee released the ‘Investigation and Deliberation Results on Disclosure of Suspect Information Cases’ on May 28, 2019, just before concluding its activities, severely criticizing the prosecution’s wrongful practices based on the compiled report,” adding, “They even recommended enacting a ‘Law on Investigation Public Relations’ (tentative name).”
He continued, “However, at that time, the Ministry of Justice did not move at all. Not only former Minister Park Sang-ki but also former Human Rights Bureau Chief Hwang Hee-seok, who is currently sought as an example of strict punishment, were the same.”
Lawyer Park pointed out, “Hwang Hee-seok, appointed as Human Rights Bureau Chief in September 2017 amid the Ministry of Justice’s ‘de-prosecution’ trend, was present during the investigation of entrenched evils involving media leaks by the prosecution, yet did nothing to the extent that it could be called ‘dereliction of duty.’”
He said, “It is necessary to face the problem and devise improvement measures even now, but the period during which the strict application of the disclosure of suspect information law could be asserted has been too long without normative force,” criticizing the unfairness of selective problem-raising.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
