[ChamTrue?] Han Dong-hoon: "Prosecutors Guarantee 'Political Neutrality' Unlike Police"... Really?

There Is an External Participation Investigation Review Committee
But Political Neutrality Is Still Difficult Due to Prosecutorial Structure
Prosecution and Police Have Clashed Over Political Neutrality

Justice Minister nominee Han Dong-hoon is attending the confirmation hearing held at the National Assembly on the 9th, responding to questions from lawmakers. Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

[Asia Economy Reporters Kim Daehyun and Gong Byungseon] The confirmation hearing for Han Dong-hoon, the nominee for Minister of Justice, was held at the National Assembly on the 9th. During the hearing, Han was questioned about the so-called 'Complete Removal of Prosecutorial Investigation Rights' (검수완박) bill and raised concerns about the police's 'political neutrality.' When Park Hyungsoo, a member of the People Power Party, asked, "Isn't there a lack of institutional measures to guarantee political neutrality when investigative authority is transferred to the police?" Han responded, "I agree. It's not a matter of capability but a structural issue," adding, "At least the prosecution had mechanisms to ensure political neutrality. The police are less prepared in that regard."

Han pointed out the hierarchical structure within the police as a problem. This vertical structure implies that investigations are inevitably influenced by higher-ups. He also highlighted issues with the 'Sangpi system.' The Sangpi system is designed to maintain public service fairness by ensuring that relatives or interested parties work in different locations or avoid involvement with parties related to their duties. Han argued that the police do not properly operate the Sangpi system, making it easier for conflicts of interest to arise. In contrast, the prosecution's structure is more horizontal and less entangled in conflicts of interest, thereby guaranteeing political neutrality. But is the prosecution structurally guaranteed political neutrality as he claims?

◆Attempts to Ensure Neutrality through the Prosecutorial Investigation Deliberation Committee... Controversies Including Disciplinary Issues of President Yoon Seok-yeol

The representative system to ensure the prosecution's political neutrality is the Prosecutorial Investigation Deliberation Committee. To guarantee transparency in decision-making, it entrusts external members with judging the appropriateness of investigations and prosecutions. Although it lacks enforceability and has been criticized for limitations, it plays a role in legitimizing prosecutorial authority.

However, the prosecution has been continuously embroiled in controversies over political neutrality. A notable example is the disciplinary issue during President Yoon Seok-yeol's tenure as Prosecutor General. When Yoon was disciplined with a two-month suspension by then-Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae, he filed an administrative lawsuit challenging the decision, but the first trial court dismissed it. The court explained that the disciplinary reasons, including the creation and distribution of documents alleging surveillance of key case trial teams and obstruction of inspection and investigation related to the 'Channel A case,' were sufficient grounds for the disciplinary action. It added, "These disciplinary reasons constitute serious misconduct undermining the legality and fairness of prosecutorial affairs," and "According to relevant sentencing standards, dismissal or higher penalties could be imposed." This implied that the two-month suspension was actually lighter than the lower limit prescribed by the sentencing standards.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued its first ruling recognizing prosecutorial abuse of prosecution rights. This concerned the case of Yoo Woosung, a victim of the 'Seoul City Public Official Spy Fabrication Case,' who was retried on charges including illegal remittance to North Korea. The court ruled that "it is appropriate to dismiss the prosecution due to prosecutorial abuse of prosecution rights." In 2019, the Prosecution Reform Committee also announced that the prosecution had knowingly allowed fabrication and concealment of testimony by the National Intelligence Service.

◆Prosecutor General Bound to the President... Conflicts over Neutrality Between Police and Prosecution Have Long Existed

The prosecution's structure itself cannot be completely free from political neutrality controversies. The Minister of Justice, appointed by the President, can exert influence through investigative command over the Prosecutor General and personnel authority via the Prosecutorial Personnel Committee. In the Prosecutor General appointment process, the Ministry of Justice initially screens candidates, and since the President appoints without requiring National Assembly consent, the Assembly does not have to adopt a confirmation report.

The police and prosecution have continuously clashed over political neutrality. Regarding the 2019 police-prosecution investigation authority adjustment bill, the prosecution conveyed to the bipartisan consultative body that "in election cases, a short six-month statute of limitations applies, requiring swift investigation, and if cases are transferred close to the deadline, prosecutors find it difficult to correct police investigative errors." In response, the police issued a document titled 'Understanding the Investigation Authority Adjustment Properly,' stating, "Political neutrality issues apply not only to the police but also to the prosecution," and "In the former Ulsan mayor case, the police were under prosecutorial investigation command and the investigation process involved prosecutors' warrant requests and record reviews, yet only the police's biased investigation has been highlighted." Han, who said the police are "less prepared," is a former chief prosecutor.