![[Law & Story] Key Issues to Be Clarified by Inspection and Investigation in the 'Accusation Solicitation' Allegations](https://cphoto.asiae.co.kr/listimglink/1/2021051310214233679_1620868902.jpg)
In Choi Seok-jin's Legal Story, we aim to cover various issues revolving around the legal community, focusing on courts and prosecution. We plan to write somewhat freely on topics such as the legal points or prospects of major cases, behind-the-scenes stories, and untold anecdotes without being bound by specific themes or formats. Today’s eighth story discusses the recent controversy surrounding the 'alleged solicitation of accusations' by the Yoon Seok-yeol prosecution, which has emerged as a flashpoint in the presidential election landscape.
[Asia Economy, Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] As the 'alleged solicitation of accusations' issue has become the biggest topic in the presidential election race, the confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties has intensified. The core figures involved, Rep. Kim Woong of the People Power Party and former Deputy Director of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Investigation and Information Policy Division Son Joon-sung, have presented conflicting positions, amplifying the suspicions.
The Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office are currently conducting preliminary fact-finding investigations, which are expected to soon transition into joint inspections. There is also interest in whether the High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Division (HOICID), which received a complaint from a civic group regarding this issue, will launch a direct investigation.
Newsbus began reporting on April 2 with an exclusive article titled '[Exclusive] Yoon Seok-yeol Prosecution, Just Before the General Election, Solicited Accusations Against Yoo Si-min, Choi Kang-wook, Hwang Hee-seok, and Others to the People Power Party,' followed by several subsequent reports alleging that the prosecution led by former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol in April last year solicited accusations against ruling party politicians to the opposition.
The core of the report is that in two instances in April last year, Son Joon-sung, then Deputy Director of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Investigation and Information Policy Division, delivered accusation letters and attached materials such as real-name verdict documents concerning ruling party politicians to opposition party members through Rep. Kim Woong.
Moreover, since Son, the former policy officer who acted as the eyes and ears of the Prosecutor General, was involved, and the people listed as victims in the accusation letters include former Prosecutor General Yoon himself, his wife Kim Geon-hee, and close aide Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon, Newsbus claims there is a high possibility that former Prosecutor General Yoon was involved.
In particular, Newsbus pointed out in a related article titled '[Background Explanation] Attempt to Neutralize the Prosecutor General Met with Yoon Seok-yeol’s Solicitation of Accusations Against the Opposition' that the timing when the accusation letters were submitted?April 3, 2020?was a period of extreme confrontation between then Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae and former Prosecutor General Yoon.
At that time, through personnel appointments, Minister Choo was pushing the so-called 'Yoon Seok-yeol faction' into sidelined positions and installed her proxy, Lee Sung-yoon, head of the Ministry of Justice’s Prosecution Bureau, as the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office to neutralize the Prosecutor General. Additionally, with the April 15 general election approaching, the ruling party’s 'Protect Cho Kuk' and the opposition’s 'Protect Yoon Seok-yeol' campaigns were clashing, so from former Prosecutor General Yoon’s perspective, a reversal card was needed.
Especially, with MBC’s 'media collusion' allegations broadcast on March 31 and April 1 of the same year, which were expected to trigger inspections and investigations of close aide Prosecutor General Han, it is analyzed that former Prosecutor General Yoon might have attempted to solicit accusations against ruling party figures who were hostile to him as a countermeasure against Minister Choo.
Verification Needed on Whether Former Prosecutor General Yoon Was Involved in Drafting or Delivering the Accusation Letters... Confirming Facts Is Priority
The Newsbus report can be summarized as 'In April last year, former Deputy Director Son delivered accusation letters against ruling party figures to Rep. Kim, soliciting accusations, with former Prosecutor General Yoon behind it.'
If the allegations raised by Newsbus are proven true through inspections or investigations, it would be practically difficult for former Prosecutor General Yoon to run for president.
Regardless of whether it legally constitutes abuse of authority or violation of the Public Official Election Act, if he used his position as Prosecutor General to solicit accusations against ruling party politicians who expressed hostility toward him, he would lose all qualifications as a presidential candidate.
On the other hand, if it is not proven through concrete testimony or evidence that former Prosecutor General Yoon ordered the solicitation or was aware of the situation by receiving reports from former Deputy Director Son, even if Son’s involvement is confirmed during inspections or investigations, the likelihood of Yoon bearing legal responsibility is low.
Another opposition presidential candidate, former Auditor General Choi Jae-hyung, stated, “Even if (former Prosecutor General Yoon) was unaware, he cannot be free from command responsibility,” but this is interpreted as meaning he should bear moral responsibility as the chief of the prosecution at the time.
Within and outside the prosecution, there is consensus that clarifying the facts of this case should come first.
Attorney A, a former prosecutor, said, “Among various facts, if even one or two intermediate steps change, the number of possible scenarios increases significantly, so it is not easy to discuss legal responsibility based on assumptions. The truth must come out, and facts must be clarified through inspections or investigations before applying legal principles.”
Fundamentally, the parts to be clarified are ▲ who wrote the accusation letters (Son Joon-sung, Kim Woong, or a third party), ▲ whether Son Joon-sung actually delivered the accusation letters to Kim Woong (if yes, whether it was to solicit accusations, to request review and then return, or if a third party delivered them and it was fabricated that Son delivered them), and ▲ whether former Prosecutor General Yoon was involved.
Once these questions are confirmed, it will be possible to examine whether the elements of crimes such as abuse of authority, violation of the Public Official Election Act, or official secrets leakage apply.
Rep. Kim Woong’s Inconsistent Statements Increase Confusion
Among the three questions above, the first two?who wrote the accusation letters and who delivered them to Rep. Kim?are matters best known by Rep. Kim himself and former Deputy Director Son.
Regarding the author of the accusation letters, Newsbus’s report implies that the 'Yoon Seok-yeol prosecution' wrote the letters and delivered them to Rep. Kim, suggesting that the deliverer was either former Deputy Director Son or another figure within the prosecution.
However, former Deputy Director Son has completely denied these claims.
In a statement released to the media the day before, he said, “On this day (the 6th), Hankyoreh newspaper and Newsbus reported allegations that I sent accusation letters and attached materials to Rep. Kim Woong. I reiterate that the allegations that I wrote or sent the accusation letters to Rep. Kim are entirely false.”
He also warned, “I will take strong legal action against baseless allegations and defamation related to this matter in the future.”
His position is that he neither wrote nor delivered the accusation letters, claiming the facts reported by Newsbus are false.
Considering only Newsbus’s article and former Deputy Director Son’s statement, either Son is lying, or Newsbus’s investigative report is incorrect?there is no other possibility.
Meanwhile, the person fueling the controversy is Rep. Kim.
While former Deputy Director Son has clearly stated his position, Rep. Kim’s statements related to this case have been inconsistent.
According to Newsbus, Rep. Kim initially said in a phone interview, “I think I only delivered (the accusation letters).”
He reasoned that if there had been accusations involving former Prosecutor General Yoon’s wife Kim Geon-hee, he would have asked why the accusations were filed and would remember, but since he does not recall, he believes he only delivered the letters. This was his response regarding the first accusation letter delivered on April 3, 2020.
Regarding the additional accusation letter related to Open Democratic Party leader Choi Kang-wook (delivered on April 8, 2020), he said he was the first within his party to raise the issue and drafted the accusation letter.
However, he maintained that he only delivered the letters and did not file accusations himself, asserting there is no legal problem. He also stated that as a member of the National Assembly, he is included among those who can receive whistleblowing reports and that receiving such reports as a lawmaker is legally protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Later, in an interview with another media outlet, Rep. Kim admitted that he personally wrote the accusation letter related to leader Choi.
Regarding the inclusion of Kim Geon-hee in the first accusation letter, he suggested that “it seems to have come from the prosecution’s side,” and “it was their problem, not that I requested it,” implying that the prosecution was involved in drafting the accusation letters.
In another interview, he claimed that when he received a call from a Newsbus reporter, he was intoxicated and traveling from Daegu to Seoul, and that the inconsistent answers were selectively edited by Newsbus to favor their report.
He strongly denied reports that he said the content related to Kim Geon-hee in the accusation letters seemed to have been delivered by the prosecution, calling it “nonsense” and accusing Newsbus of “cherry-picking my words” and “a parade of lies.”
Regarding his fluctuating statements, he explained two scenarios.
First, if former Deputy Director Son wrote and sent the accusation letters or if a third party wrote them and Son sent them to him, and he then delivered them to the party, there would be no charges. While it might be morally inappropriate, legally he would bear no responsibility.
Second, assuming all Newsbus’s reports are true and he received the accusation letters from Son and sent them to the party, but Son denies sending them, if he admits Newsbus’s report is correct, Yoon’s campaign would immediately demand evidence. However, since all Telegram chat rooms have been deleted, there is no evidence, making it impossible for him to prove his case.
Thus, Rep. Kim has not given clear answers regarding who wrote or delivered the accusation letters. It is questionable whether memories of such a serious matter involving criminal accusations against prominent ruling party politicians Yoo Si-min, Choi Kang-wook, and Hwang Hee-seok could fade so much in just one year and five months.
However, according to a call transcript between Rep. Kim and a Newsbus reporter released to the media, Rep. Kim strongly denied any connection between this case and former Prosecutor General Yoon during their first call.
When asked if he delivered the accusation letters at Yoon’s request, he replied, “No, there is no connection with that side,” and “It has nothing to do with former Prosecutor General Yoon.”
Regarding criticism that Newsbus deliberately omitted this unfavorable interview content while reporting Yoon’s involvement, the reporter explained that Rep. Kim was on a train and could not properly respond during the interview.
According to the transcript, when asked why former Deputy Director Son sent the accusation letters to Rep. Kim, he said, “I talked with Joon-sung, but I made it,” and “I might have asked him if it was legally correct.”
Rep. Kim is four years older than former Deputy Director Son, who is a fellow 29th class Judicial Research and Training Institute alumnus. Regarding the Telegram screenshot presented by Newsbus showing Son sent the accusation letters to Rep. Kim, his answer suggests he might have asked Son, his junior and colleague, to review the legal aspects of the accusation letters he drafted.
Likely to Proceed from Inspection to Investigation... HOICID Investigation Applicable
Although Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye mentioned a joint inspection by the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office regarding this issue the day before, the prevailing view is that this is not a matter that can be resolved by inspection alone.
Inspections targeting affiliated staff have limitations in investigating Rep. Kim, who has already left the prosecution, and compulsory investigation will likely be necessary to secure evidence.
The day before, the civic group Judicial Justice Citizens’ Action (JJCA) filed a complaint with the High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Division (HOICID) against former Prosecutor General Yoon, Prosecutor General Han, former Deputy Director Son, and others related to this issue. This is the 18th complaint filed by JJCA against former Prosecutor General Yoon at HOICID.
Assuming Newsbus’s reports are true, the possible charges under review include abuse of authority, violation of the Public Official Election Act, official secrets leakage, violation of the National Public Officials Act, and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act related to the real-name verdict documents.
Former and current Prosecutor Generals and prosecutors fall under high-ranking officials subject to the HOICID Act, and abuse of authority under Article 123 of the Criminal Act is a crime committed by high-ranking officials during their tenure, which HOICID has jurisdiction to investigate.
Although violations of the Personal Information Protection Act are not crimes subject to HOICID jurisdiction, they can be investigated as related offenses.
However, it is expected to take some time for HOICID to decide whether to conduct a direct investigation.
After the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office complete their fact-finding investigations and begin formal inspections, HOICID may monitor the inspection process before deciding whether to initiate a direct investigation.
Several Emerging Questions
Since the basic facts remain unclear and the testimonies of the parties involved conflict, it is currently difficult to predict the outcome of this case.
Within the prosecution, considering the potential impact of this incident, everyone is quietly awaiting the results of the Ministry of Justice and Supreme Prosecutors’ Office fact-finding investigations.
However, inside and outside the prosecution, various questions have been raised regarding the allegations reported by Newsbus.
First is the personal connection among former Prosecutor General Yoon, former Deputy Director Son, and Rep. Kim.
Newsbus reported that former Prosecutor General Yoon, through his eyes and ears?the Investigation and Information Policy Division Deputy Director?delivered accusation letters against ruling party politicians to Rep. Kim, a prosecution-affiliated politician (then a candidate), soliciting accusations.
If the solicitation were exposed, former Prosecutor General Yoon would have to resign immediately and could face criminal charges. Therefore, such an operation would have to be conducted more secretly and through someone truly trustworthy than ever before.
Newsbus found the connection between former Prosecutor General Yoon and former Deputy Director Son based on the fact that the Investigation and Information Policy Division Deputy Director is the closest aide who acts as the Prosecutor General’s eyes and ears, alongside the spokesperson who conveys the Prosecutor General’s words.
However, looking back at the situation at the time, this assumption is problematic.
Former Deputy Director Son was directly appointed by then Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae, who took office in January 2020 and immediately made personnel changes.
Former Prosecutor General Yoon strongly insisted on retaining his predecessor Kim Yoo-cheol, who was appointed in August 2019, but Minister Choo replaced Kim, who had been in office for less than six months, with Son.
In the context of escalating conflict between the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office starting with the investigation of former Minister Cho Kuk, it is unnatural to view the person chosen by Minister Choo as a trusted aide to whom former Prosecutor General Yoon would entrust a risky operation like 'soliciting accusations.'
The relationship between former Prosecutor General Yoon and Rep. Kim is also difficult to find any special connection beyond being senior and junior prosecutors. Moreover, Rep. Kim was pushed to a sidelined position as a professor at the Judicial Research and Training Institute in Jincheon shortly after former Prosecutor General Yoon’s appointment in August 2019, after serving as head of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Future Planning and Criminal Policy Division under former Prosecutor General Moon Moo-il, and eventually left the prosecution.
It is well known around the prosecution that Rep. Kim frequently expressed strong dissatisfaction with former Prosecutor General Yoon in private. If their relationship had been good, he would likely have served as spokesperson for Yoon’s presidential campaign rather than for candidate Yoo Seung-min’s campaign.
There are also reports that former Deputy Director Son and Rep. Kim were not close enough to jointly plan the 'solicitation of accusations' against ruling party politicians. Especially in April 2020, when the accusation letters were delivered, Son’s father-in-law Kim Kwang-rim was a sitting member of the Future United Party. If Son had intended to deliver accusation letters to the opposition party under Yoon’s orders or on his own, it would have been much safer to deliver them secretly through Jeong Jeom-sik, vice chairman of the party’s legal advisory committee and former head of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Public Security Division, rather than through Rep. Kim. This raises doubts about fully trusting Newsbus’s report.
There are also various opinions about the accusation letters made public through the media.
Some media reported reactions from legal professionals saying, “It seems to have been written by a trained prosecutor,” or “It is written like an indictment,” but some prosecutors who saw the letters said, “The wording and expressions are awkward,” “It looks like it was written by an untrained rookie,” or “It seems to be a poorly written letter pretending to be from a prosecutor,” showing conflicting views.
In particular, the separate section titled 'Reasons for Accusation' at the end of the letters, which elaborately discusses political background related to the complaint, was cited as evidence that it was unlikely written by a prosecutor.
The 17-page accusation letter delivered on April 3, 2020, includes a passage stating, “The accused, after reporting on Channel A reporter-related matters and criticizing it as 'media collusion,' are attempting to influence the parliamentary election results politically by using a 'dedicated informant' with a criminal record to provide false information defaming the family of the Prosecutor General and a close aide prosecutor to pro-government media, thereby misleading voters before the election. This is a serious 'political-media collusion' crime.”
However, the term 'political-media collusion' appeared only long after the MBC 'media collusion' allegations surfaced and was used alongside the term 'power-media collusion,' referring to collusion between the ruling party and media such as MBC or KBS. At the time the accusation letters were delivered, such expressions were not found in political or media discourse.
Some media have raised suspicions that the accusation letters might be fabricated after the fact based on this.
There is also controversy over the authenticity of the Telegram screenshot photo attached as evidence to Newsbus’s report.
The controversy concerns the possibility of manipulation of the phrase 'Sent by Son Joon-sung' displayed at the top of the photo.
If former Deputy Director Son’s claim that he never wrote or sent the accusation letters is true, the only remaining possibility is fabrication, which explains the raised suspicions.
Attorney B, a former prosecutor, said, “Whether the photo was captured or taken directly, photo files can fundamentally be manipulated using Photoshop or other photo editing software. In this case, since former Deputy Director Son claims he never sent the accusation letters or attachments, it is quite possible that the sender’s name was altered or the Telegram chat window was fabricated by combining different screenshots.”
There are also various discussions about the whistleblower and timing of the report to Newsbus.
Newsbus revealed that the whistleblower is a People Power Party affiliate, and Rep. Kim said he knows the whistleblower and that the purpose of the report is to trap both former Prosecutor General Yoon and candidate Yoo Seung-min.
Why an incident that occurred a year ago was reported just before the presidential election, and who obtained and leaked the real-name verdict documents of whistleblower Ji Mo related to the 'media collusion' case, are expected to be key clues in unraveling this case.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
