Investigation Team Led by Lee Seong-yoon Claims "Prosecutor's Office Search Illegal"... Appeals Court Rejects Motion for Reconsideration, Files Further Appeal

Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The former Suwon District Prosecutors' Office investigation team, which was subject to a forced investigation by the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Division (Gongsoocheo) on suspicion of leaking the indictment of Chief Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon, has filed a re-appeal against the court's decision that "there is no problem with the search and seizure."

On the 7th, the former Suwon District Prosecutors' Office investigation team, including Deputy Chief Prosecutor Lee Jeong-seop (currently head of the Fair Trade Investigation Department at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office), announced that they submitted a re-appeal to the Seoul Central District Court, which dismissed their quasi-appeal against Gongsoocheo's execution of the search and seizure. A quasi-appeal is a procedure in which a person who has been subject to a search and seizure or other disposition by an investigative agency challenges the legality of the disposition in court.

The investigation team stated, "Gongsoocheo conducted search and seizure on November 26 and 29, 2021, against the former Suwon District Prosecutors' Office investigation team on the grounds of leaking the indictment as a violation of official secrets, but failed to secure evidence corresponding to the charges," and added, "The investigation team filed a quasi-appeal on January 5 last year regarding the illegality of the above search and seizure, and today filed a re-appeal for the following reasons against the Seoul Central District Court's dismissal decision, which came after a year without any hearing."

They then systematically refuted the court's decision, which did not acknowledge the five reasons for the quasi-appeal.

First, the investigation team pointed out, "Regarding the claim that the search and seizure based on a warrant issued for charges that are clearly not official secrets and thus have no grounds for prosecution is illegal, the court stated that there is no explicit law or established precedent and that it cannot be concluded that punishment is impossible. However, by the concept of indictment, the indictment cannot be considered an official secret after prosecution, and it is inconsistent with the practice of distributing press releases simultaneously with prosecution."

Also, the investigation team argued, "Regarding the claim that the warrant was obtained by deceiving the judge with false information, while acknowledging that the warrant was apparently issued on the premise that quasi-appellants Im Se-jin and Kim Gyeong-mok were involved in the investigation and prosecution of the Lee Seong-yoon case, it is difficult to believe that the Gongsoocheo prosecutor knew this when requesting the warrant. However, although the investigation report stated the return from dispatch, the warrant application form indicated that they were still on dispatch, which can be recognized as intentional, and the important issue is not whether the prosecutor who requested the warrant knew this, but whether the judge who issued the warrant was deceived by the false information in the application, but the court omitted judgment on this point," they claimed.

The investigation team also pointed out, "Regarding the participation of dispatched police officers in Gongsoocheo's investigation, the court ruled that dispatched police cannot conduct investigations but can assist investigations, and thus found that the dispatched police played an assisting role in this case. However, the investigation records show that the police dispatched as the investigation team leader were recorded, indicating evidence that they led the investigation beyond a supporting role, yet the court omitted judgment on this point."

Furthermore, they argued, "Regarding the search and seizure of email accounts different from those stated in the warrant, the court ruled that the email accounts listed in the search warrant were merely examples, but this contradicts the Supreme Court precedent (2008Do763) that established the principle of strict interpretation of the wording in warrants."

Lastly, the investigation team emphasized, "Regarding the claim of abuse of investigative authority as retaliatory investigation, the court ruled that it is difficult to see the investigation as retaliatory without any hearing or judgment on the various evidence presented by the quasi-appellants, which constitutes insufficient examination."

The investigation team indicted Chief Prosecutor Lee in May 2021 on charges of exerting external pressure on the illegal travel ban investigation of former Deputy Minister of Justice Kim Hak-ui. Subsequently, suspicions arose that the indictment was illegally leaked to the media before it was delivered to Chief Prosecutor Lee himself.

Gongsoocheo, suspecting that the investigation team leaked the indictment, conducted a search and seizure of the internal network data of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office investigation team in November of the same year to secure evidence.

In response, the investigation team filed a quasi-appeal in January last year, requesting the cancellation of Gongsoocheo's search and seizure. The investigation team argued that the indictment could not be considered an official secret, that Gongsoocheo abused its investigative authority, and that some contents of the warrant application were false.

However, on the 1st, Judge Kwak Tae-hyun of the Criminal Division 32 of the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the quasi-appeal filed by the investigation team.

At that time, Judge Kwak ruled on the investigation team's claim of targeted investigation, stating, "It is difficult to see the investigation of the crime stated in the warrant as a retaliatory investigation."

Regarding the illegality of the indictment leak after prosecution, he said, "There is no explicit law or precedent on this matter," and "It cannot be concluded that the crime in question is clearly not punishable."

Regarding the participation of dispatched police officers in the search and seizure, he ruled, "Under the Gongsoocheo Act, investigative support officials can be dispatched without special restrictions, and the execution of the warrant was conducted under the direction of Gongsoocheo prosecutors to assist the investigation, so it is lawful."

The investigation team also claimed that some details in the warrant, such as the affiliation of some prosecutors and the specific names of seizure targets, were inaccurately stated and thus illegal, but this was also rejected.