Jin Joong-kwon Posts on Facebook "Regime's Nepotism Ending in Crushing Defeat"
Im Eun-jung Blocked at Inspection Committee Pushing 'Prosecutor General Warning'
Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye is announcing the results of the joint inspection by the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, as well as measures to improve prosecutorial investigation practices, at the Gyeonggi Government Gwacheon Complex on the 14th. / Gwacheon - Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@
[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] Criticism is mounting that the joint inspection conducted by the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office over four months on the case of former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook, ordered by Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye, was a futile and ineffective 'bland' inspection.
Initially, it was already unreasonable to order an inspection on a matter that was no longer subject to disciplinary action due to the statute of limitations, but the improvement measures proposed by the Ministry of Justice as a result of the inspection have also been criticized as ineffective.
In particular, contrary to Minister Park's declaration that the inspection was not intended to punish or discipline anyone, it was revealed that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office attempted to issue a 'warning from the Prosecutor General' to the related parties but failed, leading to the assessment that the inspection was merely aimed at restoring the honor of former Prime Minister Han, who was convicted by the Supreme Court, and embarrassing the investigation team at the time.
According to the legal community on the 16th, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Committee (hereafter, the Inspection Committee) recently decided to dismiss the cases against two prosecutors from the investigation team of former Prime Minister Han, who had been under inspection for allegations including witness tampering. A dismissal means there is no reason for disciplinary action, while a non-prosecution decision means there are grounds for discipline but it is deemed appropriate not to impose any disciplinary measures.
The Inspection Committee for the two prosecutors still in office from the investigation team of former Prime Minister Han about ten years ago was reportedly convened at the request of Han Dong-su, head of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department, and Im Eun-jeong, the Ministry of Justice Inspection Officer (former Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Policy Research Officer), who requested a 'Prosecutor General's warning' disciplinary action.
Since the statute of limitations for disciplinary action under the Prosecutors' Disciplinary Act had already expired, making it impossible to impose disciplinary measures, they attempted to push for a 'Prosecutor General's warning,' which has no statute of limitations, but it failed to pass the Inspection Committee and was thus abandoned. Earlier, Minister Park had declared that this joint inspection was not based on disciplinary action, but on the other hand, it seems they sought ways to embarrass the prosecutors involved.
The day before, a media outlet broadcasted an interview claiming that Officer Im, when summoning witnesses as reference persons for the trial of former Prime Minister Han last year, mentioned 'detention' and coerced desired testimony while investigating allegations of 'witness tampering' against the prosecutors.
Former Dongyang University professor Jin Joong-kwon introduced this report on his Facebook early that morning, commenting, "This is the exemplary investigative practice they newly created. Truly the symbol of the reformed prosecution."
Officer Im has completely denied the report's claims that she coerced and threatened witnesses during the investigation and is reportedly planning to hold those involved civilly and criminally responsible.
Additionally, former professor Jin shared an article introducing former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl's Facebook post criticizing the inspection, stating, "If Han Myeong-sook did not receive illegal political funds and finds the Supreme Court's guilty verdict so unfair, she should apply for a retrial," and posted a piece titled "The regime's failed attempt to protect its own ended in defeat."
In the post, Jin stated, "Saving Han Myeong-sook was a double-edged card for the regime," and "While protecting their own, Han Myeong-sook, it was a maneuver to attack the prosecution investigating the regime."
He continued, "What these fools forgot is that Han Myeong-sook was convicted not because of testimony but due to clear physical evidence," and "Therefore, no matter how much political games were played, this case was not one that could proceed to a retrial." In fact, the testimonies of the inmates that were problematic in former Prime Minister Han's trial did not serve as evidence for the conviction.
He added, "Since it was a baseless fight, it was bound to end in total defeat. Hence, the Minister of Justice had no choice but to make false and exaggerated announcements," and "It was not that they did not discipline, but that they tried to but failed."
Meanwhile, there are also criticisms that the investigative practice improvement measures prepared by the Ministry of Justice through this joint inspection lack effectiveness.
First, regarding the 'witness tampering' complaint related to former Prime Minister Han, the Ministry of Justice proposed as an improvement measure the 'establishment of principles for case assignment and investigation team formation,' arguing that former Prosecutor General Yoon's designation of the chief prosecutor as head of the Inspection Division 3 was an arbitrary case assignment while Officer Im was investigating.
However, the day before, Cho Nam-gwan, head of the Judicial Research and Training Institute (former Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office), refuted this in a post on the internal network, stating, "The chief prosecutor was originally the head of Inspection Division 3, and the case was never assigned or reassigned to Officer Im." A head of inspection department does not have the authority to change the chief prosecutor without the Prosecutor General's approval.
Among the announced inspection results, the claim that "reference persons who appeared as witnesses were summoned and investigated more than 100 times" is actually a total count of investigations of four witnesses conducted over periods ranging from 3 to 5 months for some and up to 9 months (Mr. Choi), so it is difficult for investigative practitioners to conclude that the number of summons alone indicates inappropriate or excessive investigation.
In particular, with the enforcement of the revised Criminal Procedure Act from next year, which limits the evidentiary power of suspect interrogation records prepared by prosecutors, the necessity for prosecutors to meet witnesses in advance to maintain prosecution is increasing. Therefore, the improvement measures suggesting 'minimizing prosecutors' prior contact with witnesses' and 'recording and preserving prior interviews' are also criticized as unrealistic.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
