"Lack of Explanation on Reasons for Detention, Necessity, and Justification"
Prosecutor Son Jun-sung (former Policy Officer for Investigation Information at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office), identified as a key figure in the allegation of instigating accusations, is attending the second pre-trial detention hearing at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 2nd. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@
[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The arrest warrant for Son Jun-sung, former Policy Officer of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Investigation Information Policy Division, re-requested by the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Department (PCC) on charges related to the 'whistleblowing scandal' allegations, was again dismissed by the court on the 3rd.
Despite the PCC's supplementary investigation, the arrest warrant for Son, the key suspect in this case, was once again rejected, raising prospects of renewed controversy over the PCC's 'inadequate investigation.'
Seo Bo-min, the chief judge in charge of arrest warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, dismissed the arrest warrant requested by the PCC for Son around 12:12 a.m. on the same day during the pre-arrest suspect hearing (warrant review).
Judge Seo stated the reason for dismissal, saying, "While it appears necessary to guarantee the suspect's right to defense, the grounds, necessity, and reasonableness for detention have not been sufficiently demonstrated."
Son is accused of instructing subordinate prosecutors in April last year to draft complaints against ruling party figures and delivering these complaints to Kim Woong, a member of the People Power Party and then a candidate for the Future United Party in the general election, thereby instigating the whistleblowing.
Previously, the PCC had requested an arrest warrant for Son, but it was dismissed by the court. On the 30th of last month, the PCC re-requested a pre-arrest warrant against Son on charges including abuse of authority, obstruction of official duties, violation of official secrets, violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, violation of the Public Official Election Act, and violation of the Criminal Procedure Electronicization Act.
Regarding the PCC's re-request for the warrant, Son's side stated, "Following re-accusations by ruling party lawmakers, the warrant was re-requested despite no significant change in circumstances after the initial dismissal, clearly showing that this investigation has political motives."
During the warrant review held that morning, the lead prosecutor, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Yeo Woon-guk, and other PCC prosecutors, along with Son's defense team, each presented their arguments for about an hour, reportedly engaging in a heated debate. Son's side particularly emphasized procedural illegality in the PCC's investigation.
In re-requesting the warrant, the PCC, unlike the first request, identified the prosecutors who drafted the complaints under Son's instructions.
During the first warrant request, the PCC did not specify any superiors or complaint drafters who conspired with Son, listing them as unidentified persons. The first warrant review for Son was presided over by Judge Lee Se-chang, chief judge in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, who dismissed the warrant citing low risk of flight or evidence tampering and insufficient necessity and reasonableness for detention.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
