Constitutional Court Unanimously Dismisses Impeachment Petition Against Prosecutor Lee Jeong-seop

Most Reasons for National Assembly Impeachment Not Specified or Unrelated to Duty Execution, No Merits Judgment Made

The Constitutional Court dismissed the impeachment petition against Lee Jeong-seop, a prosecutor at the Daejeon High Prosecutors' Office (age 53, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 32), on the 29th.

The Constitutional Court announced that it dismissed the impeachment petition against Prosecutor Lee with a unanimous opinion of all justices.

On May 8th, Lee Jeong-seop, a prosecutor at the Daejeon High Prosecutors' Office, attended the first hearing of the impeachment trial held at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, and responded to questions from the press. Photo by Heo Young-han younghan@

The Court stated, "Some of the grounds for impeachment in this case cannot be considered specified, and others are not related to the execution of official duties and therefore cannot be grounds for impeachment. Furthermore, the remaining ground?that the respondent was involved in pre-interviewing witnesses before witness examination?cannot be seen as violating Article 7, Paragraph 1, Article 27, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the former Prosecutors' Office Act, or Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act."

Earlier, Democratic Party lawmakers proposed an impeachment motion against Prosecutor Lee on November 9 of last year but requested the withdrawal of the motion from the Speaker of the National Assembly the following day, November 10. At that time, the Speaker accepted the request.

Then, on November 28 of last year, Democratic Party lawmakers reintroduced the impeachment motion against Prosecutor Lee, and on December 1 of the same year, the National Assembly plenary session passed the motion with 174 votes in favor out of 180 votes cast. Accordingly, the chairman of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, acting as the impeachment prosecutor, filed the impeachment petition with the Constitutional Court on December 4.

The grounds for Prosecutor Lee's impeachment included: ▲ abusing his status as a prosecutor by unauthorized access to criminal records, investigation records, and prior convictions of ordinary citizens unrelated to crimes, providing such materials to his relatives or third parties, or instructing junior prosecutors and other prosecution officials to inquire about the criminal records of ordinary citizens (unauthorized criminal record inquiry and access); ▲ holding a dining gathering with about ten people including family, relatives, and acquaintances at a resort condo restaurant at a ski resort reserved by a large corporation executive on December 24, 2020 (violation of the Anti-Graft Act and the Infectious Disease Control Act's assembly ban order); ▲ providing convenience in golf course reservations by improperly assisting colleagues and senior and junior prosecutors through a golf course operated by his wife’s family (providing convenience for golf course reservations); ▲ abusing his authority as a prosecutor to influence the Suseo Police Station to prevent investigation of his brother-in-law Jo's drug use case (suspected investigation suppression); ▲ pre-interviewing witnesses who were to appear in the criminal trial related to former Vice Minister of Justice Kim Hak-ui's bribery case in August 2020 (pre-interviewing witnesses before witness examination); and ▲ registering residence twice in an apartment located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, where he did not actually reside, in August 2018 and April 2021 (false residence registration).

Before examining the specific grounds for impeachment against Prosecutor Lee, the Constitutional Court assessed the procedural requirements claimed by the defense.

The Court first rejected the defense's claim that "prosecutors are not subject to impeachment, so the petition is improper."

The Court explained, "Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution stipulates that 'other public officials prescribed by law' can also be subject to impeachment, the Prosecutors' Office Act Article 37 stipulates that prosecutors are subject to impeachment, and removal from the prosecutor position through dismissal is only possible by impeachment."

Additionally, the Court dismissed the defense's claim of "abuse of impeachment rights," stating that "the impeachment resolution in this case was not based on sufficiently verified facts, the grounds for impeachment were not specified, and some grounds listed were unrelated to official duties."

The Court stated, "Since the impeachment motion was properly withdrawn, the mere fact that it was reintroduced does not mean that the National Assembly or its members abused their impeachment rights."

Furthermore, the Court noted, "Looking at the process from the initial proposal to the resolution of the impeachment motion, although the National Assembly, which holds impeachment rights, had sufficient time to investigate or review the specific content or existence of the grounds for impeachment, it appears that such procedures were not followed. However, the National Assembly Act allows the National Assembly discretion regarding whether to investigate the grounds when an impeachment motion is proposed, and impeachment proceedings differ in nature from criminal or general disciplinary procedures. Therefore, the fact that the National Assembly did not conduct a separate investigation or waited for investigation or inspection results before passing the impeachment motion does not, by itself, mean the resolution violated the Constitution or laws."

The Court further judged, "Although some grounds for impeachment in this case cannot be considered specified, and some are unrelated to the respondent's official duties, considering the nature of impeachment proceedings, this alone is insufficient to conclude that the impeachment petition constitutes an abuse of impeachment rights."

On the other hand, the Court acknowledged that some of the grounds for impeachment presented by the National Assembly were not specified.

The Court pointed out, "Among the grounds for impeachment against the respondent, such as unauthorized access to criminal records, violation of the Anti-Graft Act, providing convenience for golf course reservations, and suspected investigation suppression, the specific details such as timing, targets, counterparts, and relation to official duties are not specified to the extent that the facts can be concretely distinguished from other facts. Therefore, it is difficult to expect the respondent to exercise the right to defense regarding these grounds, and thus these grounds cannot be considered specified."

It added, "We do not further examine grounds that lack formal legality due to unspecified content."

For these reasons, the Court did not substantively rule on the grounds related to unauthorized criminal record inquiry and access, violation of the Anti-Graft Act related to resort reservations, providing convenience for golf course reservations, and suspected investigation suppression involving the brother-in-law.

Also, the Court ruled that the grounds related to violation of the assembly ban order and false residence registration are not related to the execution of official duties and therefore cannot be grounds for impeachment.

The Court explained, "The 'execution of official duties' under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution refers to the specific external manifestation and realization of inherent duties under the law and socially accepted related duties. Therefore, acts unrelated to official duties cannot be grounds for impeachment."

It added, "The parts concerning violation of the assembly ban order and false residence registration were not acts performed in the capacity of a prosecutor, so it is clear from the impeachment resolution itself that these are not facts related to the respondent's official duties. Therefore, these grounds cannot be considered related to official duties and cannot be grounds for impeachment, so we do not further examine these grounds."

Ultimately, the Court did not substantively rule on five of the six grounds for impeachment against Prosecutor Lee because they were either unspecified or unrelated to official duties and thus could not constitute grounds for impeachment.

The only ground the Court examined for legal violation was the "pre-interviewing witnesses before witness examination."

The National Assembly included in the grounds for impeachment that Prosecutor Lee's pre-interviewing of witnesses violated Article 27, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Prosecutors' Office Act, Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

However, the Court concluded that this ground was also not valid.

All nine justices agreed that the pre-interview did not violate Article 27, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution or Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Prosecutors' Office Act.

Article 27, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution guarantees the right of all citizens to receive a trial by judges determined by the Constitution and law, recognizing the right to petition for trial as a fundamental right.

The Court stated, "The pre-interview in this case did not block contact between the defendant and the witnesses, the witnesses' testimonies were presented in the criminal trial, and the witnesses testified directly in court. The defendant was acquitted of the related charges, and the verdict was finalized."

It added, "Moreover, in the criminal trial, the court did not find the pre-interview involving the respondent to be illegal due to coercion or pressure on the witnesses, and rather recognized the evidentiary value of the witnesses' testimonies."

The Court concluded, "It is difficult to consider the prosecutor's pre-interviewing of witnesses as unlimitedly permitted or justified. Depending on the individual and specific case, such pre-interviews may be illegal or inappropriate. However, based on the records of this case alone, it is insufficient to find the pre-interview illegal. Therefore, the pre-interview did not violate Article 27 of the Constitution by undermining the fairness of the trial."

The Court also found that there is no law that completely prohibits pre-interviewing witnesses before witness examination and ruled that it does not violate the Prosecutors' Office Act or the State Public Officials Act.

However, Justices Kim Ki-young and Moon Hyeong-bae expressed separate opinions, stating that while the prosecutor's pre-interview violated the duty of sincerity under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act and the duty to realize public interest under Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, it was not a serious legal violation justifying dismissal, so the petition should be dismissed.