The Conclusion of the Subcommittee Differed from the Prosecutors by 67%

Among 15 cases reviewed by the Deliberation Committee
Results confirmed for 12 cases by Legal Newspaper
Prosecutor's conclusion overturned in 8 cases

Samsung succession, Itaewon disaster, etc.
Deliberation Committee and prosecutor opinions sharply divided

The Prosecutorial Investigation Deliberation Committee (PIDC), which will review the case of First Lady Kim Geon-hee's alleged receipt of a Dior bag, is scheduled to convene on the 6th of next month. So far, it has been confirmed that nearly two-thirds of the PIDC's conclusions have differed from the position of the prosecution investigation team.

According to an analysis by Law Times on the 27th of 12 out of 15 cases handled by the PIDC since the system was introduced in 2018, in 8 cases the PIDC overturned the investigation team's conclusions, while in 4 cases it reached the same conclusions as the investigation team.

Accordingly, attention is focused on what conclusion the PIDC will reach regarding the prosecution's investigation results, which effectively cleared the First Lady. With the meeting confirmed for the first week of September, there is an increased possibility that the case will be concluded within the term of Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok (ending September 15).

[Image source=Beopryul Sinmun]

According to Law Times' reporting, in August 2021, the prosecution investigation team intended to indict former Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Baek Woon-kyu, who was under investigation for manipulating the economic feasibility evaluation of Wolseong Unit 1. However, the PIDC meeting recommended suspension of investigation and non-prosecution. At that time, all 15 members opposed continuing the investigation against former Minister Baek, and the vote on indictment was 9 against and 6 in favor.

Conversely, in January this year, regarding former Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Chief Kim Kwang-ho, who was investigated for professional negligence causing death and injury related to the Itaewon tragedy, the prosecution intended not to prosecute, but the PIDC recommended indictment by a 9 to 6 vote.

Additionally, the PIDC reached conclusions differing from the investigation team in cases such as the Asahi illegal dispatch case (recommendation for indictment) and the former Minister Han Dong-hoon's alleged collusion between prosecution and media (recommendation for suspension of investigation and non-prosecution).

On the 6th of next month, the PIDC will discuss comprehensively the prosecution's investigation results, including whether charges such as violation of the Anti-Graft Act, bribery, and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act can be applied to the First Lady. It is expected that a conclusion will be reached on the day. If opinions do not coincide, a majority vote of attending members will decide.

The selection of the 15 PIDC members was also completed through random drawing. The chairperson will be former Constitutional Court Justice Kang Il-won. In legal circles, since the PIDC operates independently, it is considered difficult to predict what conclusion will be reached.

The PIDC’s standard is ‘the public’s perspective’

There is speculation that the PIDC handling First Lady Kim Geon-hee's ‘Dior bag receipt case’ is likely to reach a conclusion aligned with the public’s perspective. This is because, looking at past cases where the PIDC expressed opinions different from the prosecution's investigation results, it often did not judge solely by legal standards. The legal issue in this review is ‘job relevance,’ and since some legal circles criticize the prosecution for narrowly interpreting the job relevance of the sitting First Lady, attention is focused on what conclusion will be reached.

Historically, the PIDC has differed from the prosecution investigation team in at least 8 out of 15 cases.

A representative case where the PIDC and prosecution opinions sharply diverged was the illegal management succession allegations against Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong. In 2020, the PIDC recommended suspension of investigation and non-prosecution regarding the merger allegations of Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries involving Lee Jae-yong and others. The prosecution did not accept the PIDC’s opinion and indicted Vice Chairman Lee without detention.

Like the current First Lady case, there is the Asahi Glass illegal dispatch case where the investigation team argued for ‘non-prosecution,’ but the PIDC recommended ‘indictment.’ In this case, the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office initially issued a non-prosecution disposition in 2017 but accepted the PIDC’s indictment recommendation in February 2019 and indicted Asahi and its then CEO.

There is also interest in how the PIDC’s conclusion on the First Lady’s luxury bag receipt allegations will influence public opinion. A former chief prosecutor turned lawyer explained, “Since the investigation team’s honor is at stake, the PIDC will reasonably explain the investigation results,” adding, “It is also necessary to examine how the members’ opinions were divided in the PIDC’s conclusion.”

If the PIDC’s conclusion differs from the investigation team’s position, there is a forecast that the responsibility for the investigation results will rest more with the investigation team than with Prosecutor General Lee. This is because, as the term of the Prosecutor General is nearing its end, it is unlikely that the General’s will will be fully enforced.

Since the PIDC was convened for this case, there has been analysis inside and outside the prosecution that the Prosecutor General might distrust the investigation team. According to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, the Prosecutor General explained the reason for convening the PIDC as follows: “I evaluated that the Central District Prosecutors’ Office’s investigation results were reported and that evidence judgment and legal interpretation were properly conducted,” but added, “Given the intense social interest and ongoing exhausting controversy surrounding this case, I judged that it is desirable to conclude it so that no further controversy remains.” An anonymous senior prosecutor said, “From the investigation team’s perspective, having the investigation results reviewed externally can feel like a lack of trust,” calling it “a rather dishonorable measure.”

An anonymous lawyer said, “If the PIDC’s conclusion differs from the investigation team’s, the Prosecutor General may face the task of overturning the results,” adding, “He would have to stake his position and take a gamble, but since his term is almost over, it seems difficult.”

Reporter Lim Hyun-kyung, Law Times

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