Sohn Joon-sung, 'Gobal Saju' Second Detention Hearing: "I Will Explain in Detail to the Judge" (Comprehensive)

Prosecutor Son Jun-sung (former Chief of the Investigation Information Policy Office at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office), identified as a key figure in the alleged report-for-hire scandal, is attending the second pre-arrest detention hearing at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 2nd. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

Son Joon-sung, the Daegu High Prosecutors' Office human rights protection officer (prosecutor) and a key suspect in the 'accusation manipulation' scandal, faced the possibility of detention again on the 2nd. This comes 37 days after the first arrest warrant requested by the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (HOCI) was dismissed by the court on October 26.

If Prosecutor Son is detained, the HOCI will gain momentum to also target Yoon Seok-yeol, the People Power Party's presidential candidate (former Prosecutor General), but if not, the related investigation may come to an end.

Seo Bo-min, the chief judge in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, began the detention hearing (warrant substantive examination) for Prosecutor Son at 10:30 a.m. that day.

Prosecutor Son arrived at the court around 10:01 a.m. When asked by reporters about his feelings on the reapplication of the warrant, he replied, "I will explain in detail to the judge." When questioned about the omission of the so-called 'upper-level' involvement from the warrant and the specification of the process of delivering the accusation letter, he said, "I will explain in court," withholding further comments. He did not respond to questions about whether there had been any changes in circumstances over the past month. His detention decision is expected to be made that night or early on the 3rd.

The HOCI investigation team for the accusation manipulation allegations (led by Deputy Chief Prosecutor Yeo Woon-guk) refiled the arrest warrant for Prosecutor Son on the 30th of last month.

The charges against Prosecutor Son include abuse of authority, obstruction of the exercise of rights, disclosure of official secrets, violations of the Personal Information Protection Act, the Electronic Criminal Procedure Act, and the Public Official Election Act. He is accused of instructing prosecutors under his jurisdiction around April last year, while serving as the head of the Investigation Information Policy Office at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, to draft accusation letters and collect supporting evidence against ruling party figures and journalists, and delivering the accusation letter to Kim Woong, a People Power Party lawmaker (then a Future United Party general election candidate).

The HOCI is reported to have specified the circumstances of the case more concretely in this warrant application compared to the first one that was dismissed. They identified the senior officials who conspired with Prosecutor Son and the authors of the accusation letters as Prosecutors Sung-mo and Lim-mo, who were prosecutors in the Investigation Information Policy Office at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office at the time. The first arrest warrant application did not specify these individuals, listing them as 'unknown persons,' which led to controversy over the warrant's inadequacy.

Additionally, the content from the first warrant stating that "Prosecutor Son conspired with unnamed senior prosecutors" was omitted this time. This is interpreted as a strategic move to prioritize securing Prosecutor Son's custody and proving the charges rather than revealing the possible involvement of candidate Yoon, who was also initially investigated.

Regarding this, Prosecutor Son's side stated, "The HOCI refiled the warrant despite no significant change in circumstances after the warrant was dismissed, following renewed accusations from ruling party lawmakers," adding, "This clearly shows that the investigation has political motives." They also said, "When we filed a quasi-appeal against the HOCI's search and seizure procedures, they immediately requested a warrant, which goes beyond undermining the right to defense and feels like retaliatory detention, causing judicial fear."