Prosecution and Ministry of Justice Monitor Consideration of Establishing Senior Legal Officer... Opposition Claims It’s for Special Prosecutor Defense

"Prosecutors and Other Investigative Agencies Under Scrutiny"
Monitoring Movements of the Presidential Office

Possibility of Retrieving Ministry of Justice's Personnel Verification Authority Cannot Be Excluded

“President Yoon Seok-yeol is looking for someone who will shamelessly act as a shield for himself and his spouse while wielding a more ruthless sword against his political opponents.”

On the 15th, when Cho Kuk, leader of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party, left a brief comment on social media about the next appointment of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office chief, there was an assessment within the prosecution that it seemed like he was defending Song Kyung-ho, the current chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, whom he considers an ‘enemy.’ Song, who was the third deputy chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, had previously led investigations into allegations of admission fraud involving Cho’s children, which Cho had earlier described as a “planned massacre of the entire family.” However, when rumors of Song’s dismissal surfaced earlier this year during the review of summoning First Lady Kim Geon-hee for questioning, the ironic situation emerged where ‘the enemy (President Yoon) of my enemy (Song Kyung-ho) seems to be my (Cho Kuk’s) ally.’

[Image source=Beomryul Newspaper]

Meanwhile, as the presidential office is considering a reshuffle including the establishment of a Legal Secretary’s Office, the timing of the prosecution personnel reshuffle, which was expected to take place after the general election, is also likely to be delayed somewhat. Analysts suggest that the so-called ‘Yoon-ga-geun-Han-ga-won’ standard?meaning those close to President Yoon Seok-yeol (64, 23rd class) and distant from former People Power Party emergency committee chairman Han Dong-hoon (51, 27th class)?will still be valid for senior prosecution officials such as the chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office.

Restoration of the Oversight Function Is the Biggest Focus

The prosecution and the Ministry of Justice are closely watching the moves of the presidential office. The position and role will vary depending on the authority granted to the Legal Secretary’s Office or the Legal Special Advisor.

First and foremost, whether the oversight (司正) function will be restored is a matter of intense interest. If it takes the form of the former Civil Affairs Secretary’s Office, which held both oversight and personnel authority, it could be interpreted as an intention to tighten control over oversight agencies, including the prosecution. Although the presidential office is currently taking a cautious approach by gauging public opinion regarding the role of the Legal Secretary’s Office, opposition parties have pointed out that the presidential office might also intend to tighten the reins in a situation where summoning First Lady Kim Geon-hee for questioning is inevitable. Park Joo-min, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, also highlighted this point, saying, “It seems like there is an intention to strongly control power agencies known as oversight institutions.”

The appointment of the Legal Secretary is also a matter of interest. The Civil Affairs Secretary’s Office has taken different approaches depending on the government’s character: both the Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye administrations appointed former prosecutors, while the Roh Moo-hyun and Moon Jae-in administrations appointed lawyers, judges, and various non-legal professionals. Who is appointed as the Legal Secretary will effectively determine which role President Yoon emphasizes. Since most of President Yoon’s aides were prosecutors, there is speculation that the Legal Secretary’s Office will be headed by someone from the prosecution.

An official from an oversight agency said, “With the summoning of First Lady Kim Geon-hee by the prosecution before the special prosecutor becoming a foregone conclusion, both prosecution personnel appointments and the establishment of higher organizations could be politically interpreted, so careful decisions are necessary.”

Possibility of Retracting Personnel Vetting from the Ministry of Justice

It has become increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that the Ministry of Justice will lose its personnel vetting function, which it has been responsible for under the current administration. With the abolition of the Civil Affairs Secretary’s Office, personnel vetting has been handled by the Personnel Information Management Division of the Ministry of Justice. Although the personnel authority was transferred with the aim of increasing transparency and accountability, issues of inadequate vetting have consistently been raised.

During confirmation hearings, the drunk driving and assault records of Kang Do-hyung, nominee for Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, the stock trading during duty and allegations of school violence by the child of Kim Myung-soo, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were revealed. Kim Haeng, nominee for Minister of Gender Equality and Family, withdrew amid allegations of stock parking, and Lee Gyun-yong, nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was rejected due to failure to report public office assets. In particular, the Ministry of Justice’s personnel division was continuously criticized for merely collecting technical and practical information without making political judgments.

Meanwhile, major policies promoted by the Ministry of Justice, such as the Korean-style Jessica Law and the establishment of an Immigration Office, are also at risk of being derailed. Bills pending at the time the 21st National Assembly’s term ends on the 29th of next month will be automatically discarded.

Woo Bin, Legal Newspaper Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.