First Impeachment Prosecution of a Sitting Prosecutor in Constitutional History, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Andongwan: "Handling the Case According to Law and Principles"

"Yoo Woosung Actively Participated in the Crime... No Other Considerations"
Prosecutor General's Office: "Constitutional Court Will Decide Whether There Are Grounds for Impeachment to Dismiss the Prosecutor"

For the first time in constitutional history, an impeachment motion was filed against a sitting prosecutor, resulting in the suspension of duties of Andongwan, Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Anyang Branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office (age 53, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 32), who stated that he "handled the case solely according to law and principles."

Speaker of the National Assembly Kim Jin-pyo declared the passage of the arrest motion against Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, at the plenary session of the National Assembly on the 21st.
Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

On the 21st, immediately after the impeachment motion was passed at the National Assembly, Prosecutor Ahn distributed a statement to reporters, saying, "I did not consider any other factors in investigating, judging, and deciding the case," and added, "I will diligently participate in the procedures following the National Assembly's decision to ensure that these facts and circumstances are fully revealed."

On the same day, the National Assembly voted on the impeachment motion against Prosecutor Ahn, resulting in 180 votes in favor, 105 against, and 2 invalid votes, passing the motion. The impeachment motion was primarily initiated by opposition party members, including those from the Democratic Party of Korea.

Prosecutor Ahn explained, "The accused (Mr. Yu Woosung) was a Chinese national residing in North Korea disguised as a defector from North Korea, actively involved in the crime by sharing the smuggling operation with accomplices and playing an essential role. Additional facts confirming his direct involvement in smuggling were also identified," and added, "The proceeds from the smuggling were substantial, and there were indications that the crime had been concealed."

He further stated, "In a previous case, the responsible prosecutor treated the accused as a North Korean defector university student who merely lent his account, considering his involvement minor and the benefits gained minimal, thus issuing a non-prosecution disposition. However, completely different facts were confirmed this time, which cannot be compared to the previous case," and said, "I judged that it was necessary to reopen the previous non-prosecution case and, after investigating it together with the charge of obstruction of official duties by deception, proceeded with prosecution."

He added, "Traditionally, when new evidence or facts are discovered after a case decision, the prosecution has reopened previous non-prosecution cases to correct the decision according to the newly confirmed facts," and said, "I investigated and handled the case following such practices and procedural standards."

Prosecutor Ahn additionally indicted Mr. Yu in May 2014 on charges of illegal remittance to North Korea (violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act). In the first trial, Mr. Yu was found guilty of both violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act and obstruction of official duties by deception.

However, while the charge of obstruction of official duties by deception was upheld, the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act was overturned in the appellate court with a dismissal of the indictment, stating there was no valid reason to reverse the non-prosecution disposition. The prosecution appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. This was the first case recognizing prosecutorial abuse of power.

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office also issued a statement, saying, "Regarding the matter where the Constitutional Court decided to impeach the prosecutor who indicted a case in 2014 that was largely confirmed guilty after nine years, a proper decision will be made through the judicial procedures prescribed by law on whether this constitutes 'a serious violation of the Constitution and laws warranting dismissal of the prosecutor' as grounds for impeachment."