Investigation Information Leak: 'Seobu District Court Judge' Prosecuted with Suspension... Constitutional Court States "Prosecutors' Serious Legal Misunderstanding"

Constitutional Court Rules Prosecutorial Suspension Illegal... "Violation of Equality and Pursuit of Happiness Rights, Disposition Must Be Canceled"

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court (center) and other justices entered and took their seats in the Constitutional Court courtroom in Jongno-gu, Seoul, where the constitutional complaint and unconstitutionality review trial was held on the afternoon of the 26th.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the prosecution's disposition regarding a sitting judge, who was granted a non-prosecution disposition for leaking investigation information in collusion with former Seoul Western District Court Chief Judge Lee Tae-jong (currently a presiding judge at Suwon High Court) ? who was acquitted in the ‘Judicial Farming Scandal’ ? was unlawful.

On the 26th, the Constitutional Court unanimously accepted the constitutional complaint filed by Judge A, seeking the cancellation of the non-prosecution disposition.

The prosecution had determined that Judge A, in collusion with former Chief Judge Lee in 2016, passed investigation information related to the corruption investigation of the Western District Court’s enforcement officer’s office staff to former Deputy Chief of the Court Administration Office Lim Jong-heon, and thus issued a non-prosecution disposition.

The prosecution viewed that former Chief Judge Lee, in an attempt to conceal corruption, had Judge A, who was a planning judge, instruct lower-level staff to monitor the investigation status and then relay that information to former Deputy Chief Lim.

After former Chief Judge Lee was acquitted in both the first and second trials, Judge A filed a constitutional complaint, stating, "I never leaked official secrets such as passing investigation information to former Deputy Chief Lim, nor did I have the authority or fact of instructing staff to monitor the investigation status."

The Constitutional Court judged, "There is a possibility that Judge A’s act of providing investigation information related to the enforcement officer’s corruption case to former Deputy Chief Lim in collusion with former Chief Judge Lee does not constitute a leak of official secrets in the course of duty."

Furthermore, the court stated, "Although it is difficult to definitively conclude that Judge A conspired with former Chief Judge Lee and others to have general affairs department staff monitor and report on the investigation status, the prosecution recognized charges of leaking official secrets and abuse of authority and issued a non-prosecution disposition. There were significant legal errors, investigative negligence, or errors in evidence assessment that influenced that decision, resulting in violations of the petitioner’s rights to equality and pursuit of happiness."