First Case of Prosecution Request by the Corruption Investigation Office Returned by the Prosecution
Prosecutors: "Insufficient Evidence Secured"
Corruption Investigation Office: "Legal Review Thoroughly Conducted"
The conflict is intensifying as the prosecution, stating that additional investigation is necessary regarding the bribery case involving a senior official of the Board of Audit and Inspection, has sent the case back to the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Department (Gong-su-cheo), which in turn has refused to accept it. When the prosecution countered Gong-su-cheo's refusal to accept the case by saying "sufficient evidence has not been secured," Gong-su-cheo rebutted again, saying "a thorough legal review has been conducted." This is the first time the prosecution has returned a case for which Gong-su-cheo requested prosecution.
On the 12th, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office announced, "We have transferred all related documents and evidence of the 'bribery case involving a senior official of the Board of Audit and Inspection' received from Gong-su-cheo back to Gong-su-cheo."
After reviewing the evidentiary relationships and legal grounds of the investigation records sent by Gong-su-cheo, the prosecution judged that, based solely on Gong-su-cheo's investigation results so far, the collection of evidence on factual matters and the review of related legal grounds are insufficient to decide whether to prosecute.
The prosecution stated, "Considering Gong-su-cheo's legal status and nature, rather than conducting separate evidence collection or legal review at the prosecution to re-examine and decide on the criminal charges, it is deemed more appropriate for Gong-su-cheo to conduct additional investigations to collect evidence or re-examine the legal grounds."
Accordingly, the prosecution added opinions on the evidence and legal grounds and transferred all related documents and evidence received from Gong-su-cheo back to Gong-su-cheo on the same day.
Previously, in November last year, Gong-su-cheo requested the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office to prosecute Kim Mo, a Grade 3 official of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and B, who was the nominal CEO of A Corporation operated by Kim, on charges of bribery under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes and embezzlement under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes.
After the prosecution's return of the case, Gong-su-cheo issued a statement saying, "The prosecution's transfer of the case is a measure without any legal basis," and declared, "We will refuse to accept the case."
Gong-su-cheo explained, "According to the Constitutional Court precedents, Gong-su-cheo prosecutors have an established legal status as prosecutors," and "According to Article 26 of the Gong-su-cheo Act, after investigating the case, Gong-su-cheo requested prosecution from the prosecution and sent all investigation records and evidence to the prosecution."
They added, "The prosecution should conduct supplementary investigations and then make decisions on prosecution or non-prosecution," and expressed regret over the prosecution's unilateral decision without any prior discussion or legal basis.
Furthermore, Gong-su-cheo noted, "In the past, the prosecution conducted supplementary investigations such as search and seizure and made prosecution or non-prosecution decisions in cases where Gong-su-cheo requested prosecution, including those involving Cho Hee-yeon, Superintendent of Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education; Kim Seok-jun, former Superintendent of Busan Metropolitan Office of Education; Assemblyman Kim Woong; and Park Ji-won, former Director of the National Intelligence Service."
The prosecution rebutted Gong-su-cheo's position, stating, "After a thorough review of the case, we judged that evidence collection and legal grounds are insufficient to decide on prosecution," and "Considering Gong-su-cheo's legal status, we transferred the case back so that Gong-su-cheo could re-examine and supplement the evidentiary relationships and legal grounds on its own, but Gong-su-cheo is refusing to accept the case without confirming the reasons for the prosecution's transfer."
However, Gong-su-cheo countered the prosecution's opinion, saying, "After the detention warrant was dismissed, Gong-su-cheo immediately conducted four summons investigations of the donors and others, provided the defense counsel with opportunities to submit opinions, and completed supplementary investigations including thorough legal review," and "Transfers and re-transfers only apply when there is a legal basis."
Under the Gong-su-cheo Act, bribery charges against Grade 3 or higher officials of the Board of Audit and Inspection fall under high-ranking public official crimes that Gong-su-cheo can investigate, but the prosecution has the authority to prosecute. Gong-su-cheo's prosecution authority is limited to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justices, Prosecutor General, judges, prosecutors, and police officers of rank Superintendent or higher.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
