Constitutional Court Rejects Witness Requests Including Lee Jeong-seop's Brother-in-Law and Investigator in Drug Case

The Constitutional Court, currently hearing the impeachment petition case against Prosecutor Lee Jeong-seop of the Daejeon High Prosecutors' Office (age 53, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 32), has dismissed the National Assembly's witness request for Lee's sister-in-law, Kang Mi-jeong, spokesperson for the Party for National Innovation, who is the whistleblower of allegations against Prosecutor Lee.

The Constitutional Court is expected to conclude the oral arguments after the third hearing scheduled for the 25th of next month, and then proceed to a full examination of whether the charges presented by the National Assembly against Prosecutor Lee are substantiated and whether the illegality warrants dismissal from his prosecutorial position.

Prosecutor Lee Jeong-seop of the Daejeon High Prosecutors' Office is meeting with the press to express his position before attending the second hearing of the impeachment trial case held on the afternoon of the 28th at the Constitutional Court in Jaedong, Jongno-gu, Seoul.

At the second hearing of the impeachment petition case on the 28th, Chief Justice Lee Jong-seok of the Constitutional Court stated, "We have thoroughly reviewed the statement submitted by Ms. Kang and reached an agreement regarding its admission," adding, "It appears that Ms. Kang has detailed all the experiences and testimonies she wishes to provide related to the impeachment trial in her statement."

He continued, "We have accepted Ms. Kang's statement as documentary evidence, and since the respondent (Prosecutor Lee) has consented to the use of this evidence, it effectively means waiving the right to cross-examination," and declared, "Therefore, the witness request for Ms. Kang will not be accepted and is dismissed." Previously, the defense had agreed to the admission of Ms. Kang's statement as evidence.

At the first hearing held on the 9th, Kim Yoo-jung, the petitioner’s attorney, argued, "Ms. Kang's statement suggests there is sufficient possibility that the (brother-in-law's drug) case was covered up due to external influence," emphasizing the necessity of witness examination.

Regarding allegations such as 'checking criminal records of ordinary citizens' and 'entertainment by executives of large corporations' among the grounds for Prosecutor Lee's impeachment, Attorney Kim stressed the need to hear Ms. Kang's testimony since she directly received information about criminal records and attended group meetings.

On the other hand, Seo Hyung-seok, defense counsel for Prosecutor Lee, pointed out that the witness request for Ms. Kang was made after three rounds of preparatory procedures had concluded, that Ms. Kang is not in a position to have direct contact or experience related to Prosecutor Lee's official duties, and that her credibility is questionable as she is active as a party spokesperson. He stated, "If there are parts that must be proven through Ms. Kang's testimony and such testimony needs to be submitted to your court, it would suffice to submit a detailed written statement or interrogatory answers. Since there have already been many interviews through the media, organizing and submitting those would be sufficient," expressing opposition to the witness adoption.

The Constitutional Court also rejected the National Assembly's witness requests for four individuals: a corporate executive Kim, who was alleged to have provided inappropriate entertainment to Prosecutor Lee; three investigators involved in the drug case investigation of Prosecutor Lee's brother-in-law Cho; and Cho himself.

Chief Justice Lee said, "Similar to Ms. Kang, the court deliberated on the four witnesses before the second hearing," and added, "After reviewing the submitted materials and documents, we find it difficult to recognize the necessity of witness examination for these individuals."

He explained the dismissal reason, stating, "These individuals were not specified at all in the impeachment petition or preparatory hearings up to the first hearing, and there is no clear explanation of their relevance to any acts related to the official duties. Under these circumstances, it is currently inappropriate to adopt and examine them as witnesses," according to the court's judgment.

The Constitutional Court decided to determine the admissibility of forensic evidence from the mobile phone of Cho, Prosecutor Lee's brother-in-law, including messages exchanged between Cho and Prosecutor Lee, after receiving additional written opinions from both parties. The petitioner’s side stated they would review and organize the materials before submitting them as documentary evidence. Chief Justice Lee requested that only parts relevant to the grounds for impeachment be submitted and noted that even if submitted as documentary evidence, materials unrelated to the impeachment grounds may not be admitted as evidence.

Previously, the Constitutional Court issued a document submission order to the forensic company that examined Cho's mobile phone, requiring submission of all messages exchanged between Cho and the respondent, and between Cho and the respondent's spouse, from 2014 to February 2023, including all messages containing specific keywords.

Regarding this material, Prosecutor Lee's defense argues that since Ms. Kang allegedly stole Cho's mobile phone and commissioned the analysis, the results should not be used as evidence. Conversely, the petitioner’s side requests the evidence be admitted, citing that acts between spouses are exempt from criminal punishment under the criminal law's kinship exemption provision.

On this day, Constitutional Justice Moon Hyung-bae requested the petitioner’s side to prove the requirements for the digital evidence's admissibility, such as identity and integrity.

Chief Justice Lee especially urged both parties to take special care to prevent the possible leakage of the material, which likely contains personal and private information, to external parties.

He said, "The court has received the document submission report from the company, and both parties' attorneys have reviewed it. Since the report may include content related to the privacy of involved individuals, there is concern that such information could be leaked to third parties unrelated to this impeachment procedure or used for other purposes."

He added, "As I have already mentioned, I would like to reiterate the request," and said, "According to the conditions attached when the court issued the document submission order and the pledge signed by both parties' attorneys, please be especially careful to ensure that the materials are not used outside the impeachment trial process or leaked to the media."

Meanwhile, on this day, Prosecutor Lee's defense withdrew their claim regarding procedural defects in the National Assembly's impeachment process, which they argued violated the principle of ne bis in idem. Chief Justice Lee responded, "Although the claim is withdrawn, I will consider it as a circumstance showing that the impeachment petition may have been an abuse of the impeachment right."

The Constitutional Court scheduled the third hearing for the 25th of next month.

Chief Justice Lee said, "Depending on the situation, the oral arguments may conclude at the next hearing, so I ask that the petitioner and the respondent prepare to make their final statements then."

However, he added, "Of course, the hearing schedule may change depending on the admission of evidence requested."