"Political and Contradictory Truth Investigation"
"Prosecutorial Reform Process Lacked Thoroughness"
[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Park Jun-young (46, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 35), a lawyer famous as a specialist in retrials who has handled several retrial cases including the ‘Yakchon Five-way Intersection Murder Case,’ has been continuously making pointed remarks about the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s Past Affairs Investigation Team (hereinafter the Investigation Team) through his social networking service (SNS).
Park was a civilian investigator who directly participated in Team 8 of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s Investigation Team, which investigated the case of former Vice Minister of Justice Kim Hak-ui from 2018 to 2019.
As the prosecution is investigating allegations of a ‘Blue House planned purge’ related to the Kim Hak-ui case, the materials Park disclosed, including KakaoTalk group chat conversations among the investigation team members at the time, contain indications that the Investigation Team conducted an excessive investigation with a specific political intent, which is expected to spark controversy.
When the suspicion of ‘illegal exit ban’ on Kim Hak-ui first surfaced earlier this year, and the Ministry of Justice explained it as an ‘inevitable administrative process for the realization of justice,’ Park directly criticized then Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae via SNS, saying, “Minister Choo, it seems you are not well aware of the situation at the time of the investigation request, the content of the request, or the investigation process of the investigation team,” and asserted that “there was no basis for the exit ban on former Vice Minister Kim.”
At the time, he pointed out, “The claim that it was an inevitable administrative process for the realization of justice is an overreach,” and added, “This case should be approached from the perspective of ‘the realization of the rule of law.’”
Political and Contradictory Investigation... “Unbelievable Testimony of Yoon Joong-chun Became the Basis for Investigation Request”
On the 20th, Park posted on his Facebook under the title ‘Political and Contradictory Investigation’ that “Yoon Joong-chun’s testimony is hard to believe. It is unlikely that Yoon suddenly repented and revealed the truth.” He revealed that the testimony, which was hard to believe, became the basis for the investigation request.
He continued, “The public summons was premised on the trust that Yoon Joong-chun would not make statements beyond what we expected.” The statements beyond expectations seemed to be concerns that a government official might come out of Yoon’s mouth. This was because they were wary of baseless remarks that would throw a bomb at the government’s prosecution reform efforts.”
Although many within the Investigation Team doubted the reliability of Yoon Joong-chun’s testimony, the investigation request against former Vice Minister Kim was eventually made. The team was also concerned that Yoon’s sudden demand for a public summons might lead to unexpected actions such as naming ruling party figures as recipients of hospitality during the summons.
The article linked by Park in the post included a message from a team member in the group chat at the time, stating, “Given that the president ordered a thorough investigation, Yoon Joong-chun suddenly changing his attitude to cooperate with the investigation and even making counterproposals to the team raises strong suspicions that he might be trying to throw a bomb to prevent the investigation from proceeding. If, during the public summons, absurd people are named or statements arise that the team cooperated or made deals with Yoon, we all must bear responsibility for failing to prevent this. I believe such incidents must never happen, and I hope everyone acts rationally.”
Recently, Park provided the media with materials including the 1,249-page ‘Final Report on the Former Vice Minister Kim Hak-ui Case’ prepared by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Investigation Team, the ‘Interview Reports of Yoon Joong-chun and Park Kwan-chun,’ and the group chat conversations of the investigation team at the time to promote public discussion on the truth of the Kim Hak-ui case.
Purpose of Public Summons... “To Humiliate Kim Hak-ui and Raise Public Criticism to Extend Investigation Period”
On the same day, Park posted on Facebook under the title ‘Purpose of Public Summons,’ claiming that the Investigation Team had a specific political purpose and sought to humiliate former Vice Minister Kim.
He stated, “Rather than for the purpose of actual investigation, the public summons was used to raise public criticism against former Vice Minister Kim and to justify extending the investigation period.”
He added, “Such public summons also had the purpose of humiliating him. Previously, Yoon Joong-chun and Park Kwan-chun were met outside the Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office, considering their positions, but former Vice Minister Kim was unilaterally notified of the public summons without prior discussion of the investigation schedule.”
Park said, “The public only knows about the ‘public summons of former Vice Minister Kim Hak-ui,’ which everyone criticizes. However, they do not know the facts behind it: that procedures were not properly followed, that the public summons was conducted without principles to humiliate, and that there was a separate political purpose behind the public summons. Only information that they wanted to impose unilaterally was provided. The public cannot make a proper judgment on this situation. Has this never happened before? Can we guarantee it will never happen again?” expressing concern.
He explained the background of his publicizing the case, saying, “Let’s change our society through this case. I emphasize our efforts to secure ‘sincerity’ and ‘predictability’ in official duties. I also reflect on the past events I proceeded with while hiding my true feelings.” He added, “Please read the entire article. There is a public interest purpose that made it inevitable to disclose the group chat.”
Objective and Fair Investigation... “Need to Be Careful Not to Get Caught in Political Controversy”
On the same day, Park posted another Facebook entry titled ‘Objective and Fair Investigation,’ stating, “When the interview reports of Yoon Joong-chun and Park Kwan-chun were shared in the internal group chat, although the report contents might differ from objective facts, it was assumed that Yoon and others testified as stated in the reports.” He added, “Yoon Joong-chun has lived by flaunting his wealth and connections. Therefore, it is unclear how much of his testimony should be trusted.”
He continued, “I still have doubts whether Prosecutor Lee (Gyu-won) really included Yoon Joong-chun’s testimony, which he did not make, in the report,” and said, “I hope the truth will be revealed during the trial process.”
He also noted, “Since the report was not a verbatim transcript but a form that captured the gist of the testimony, it is not easy to determine whether it is false.”
Park emphasized, “There is a need to expand discussions on this issue,” and said, “The police, prosecution, and recently the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) that conducted a private interview with Chief Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon are also preparing investigation reports. I suggest demanding more objective procedures and methods in preparing such investigation reports.”
While expressing his hope for an objective and fair prosecution investigation, Park pointed out that it was problematic that Yoon Joong-chun’s unreliable testimony was leaked from the investigation team in the form of exclusive media reports and became the basis for the investigation request against former Vice Minister Kim.
He urged, “Although the disclosure of the false interview report gave the prosecution legitimacy for the investigation, care must be taken to prevent political controversy during the investigation process,” and added, “I hope the prosecution thoroughly clarifies the facts of this case objectively and fairly based solely on evidence and legal principles.”
Park said, “While this public discussion supports the legitimacy of the ongoing investigation, I hope the prosecution conducts the investigation objectively, fairly, and carefully to avoid political controversy. Meanwhile, what must not be overlooked here is that the testimony, which is hard to believe, was leaked in the form of exclusive reports and became the basis for the investigation request. The responsibility for this cannot be taken lightly,” he pointed out.
Reason Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won Wanted to Be Investigated by CIO... “Prosecution Reform Changed Positions According to Political Interests, Messing Up the System”
Meanwhile, on the same day, Park criticized the current government’s prosecution reform for lacking consistency and becoming a mess as it frequently changed positions according to political interests, in relation to Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won’s constitutional complaint filed with the Constitutional Court the day before, claiming that the prosecution’s indictment against him violates the Constitution.
In a Facebook post titled ‘The Reason Prosecutor Lee Wanted the CIO to Decide on Indictment,’ he said, “Prosecutor Lee’s intention in filing the constitutional complaint, arguing that the CIO should decide on the indictment of his case, may be understood by looking at related information together,” and warned, “Do not view the case trapped in the context of factional logic. You will be deceived.”
He pointed out, “The side pushing prosecution reform claimed, ‘Each institution will check and balance each other and conduct strict and balanced investigations. The shortcomings of the system will be supplemented, and conflicts will be resolved amicably.’ We hoped for this. But the reality is different. What do the CIO, prosecution, and police look like now? They are fighting over authority. The Constitutional Court is expanding to handle this issue.”
He added, “The prosecution reform process was not meticulous. The system became a mess as positions changed according to political interests.”
Park concluded by emphasizing, “‘Democracy is not a system based on goodwill and trust but a system based on distrust and checks and balances.’ While I do not fully agree, I think this was a point that should have been seriously considered when designing a system suitable for our current situation.”
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
