Prosecutor's Withdrawal Met with Strong Rebuttal from Supreme Prosecutors' Office: "Lawful Measure for Efficient Prosecution Maintenance"

"No Prohibition on Acting Positions, No Issues with Command Structure"

The prosecution office directly refuted the court's order on the 11th to dismiss Prosecutor A from the Busan District Prosecutors' Office, who appeared after being appointed as a temporary duty officer in the ‘Seongnam FC sponsorship fund suspicion case,’ stating, “There is no regulation prohibiting temporary duty appointments for one day, and there is no problem with the command structure.”

Earlier, the Criminal Division 1 of Suwon District Court Seongnam Branch (Chief Judge Heo Yong-gu) ordered the dismissal of Prosecutor A from the Busan District Prosecutors' Office during the Seongnam FC case trial on the 11th, citing illegal temporary duty appointment as the reason.

About ten days after Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok ordered a swift and thorough investigation into the allegations regarding Kim Geon-hee's expensive handbags, a personnel reshuffle of senior prosecutors was carried out. There is speculation that a mid-level prosecutor personnel reshuffle may take place as early as this week. The photo was taken on the 20th at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

On the 14th, the prosecution office issued a statement to reporters saying, “To ensure efficient prosecution maintenance, the Prosecutor General assigned the prosecution maintenance duties of the Seongnam FC case to Prosecutor A,” adding, “This is a lawful measure under Article 7-2 of the Prosecutors' Office Act.” The prosecution office also noted that there is a similar provision in Article 6 of the Court Organization Act. Furthermore, it explained that the specific details and procedures of the prosecutor temporary duty appointment system are concretized in Article 4 of the Prosecutor Work Rules (Ministry of Justice Ordinance), delegated under Article 11 of the Prosecutors' Office Act and Article 15 of the Prosecutor Personnel Regulations (Presidential Decree).

In the statement, the prosecution office explained, “If the phrase ‘among prosecutors of the prosecutors' office under jurisdiction’ stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Prosecutor Work Rules is interpreted to mean ‘temporary duty appointments can only be made among prosecutors within the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, High Prosecutors' Offices, and District Prosecutors' Offices,’ it would lead to an unreasonable conclusion that even if a significant case attracting social attention occurs in a specific District Prosecutors' Office requiring manpower reinforcement, prosecutors from other offices cannot be deployed for investigation or trial duties.”

In the case of Prosecutor A, who received a one-day temporary duty appointment for prosecution maintenance, there is no regulation prohibiting one-day or multiple temporary duty appointments, and on the day of the trial, the prosecutor is under the command of the head of the prosecutors' office who issued the temporary duty order, so there is no problem with the command structure.

The prosecution office emphasized, “We will continue to operate the temporary duty appointment system according to relevant laws and procedures when necessary to ensure thorough investigation and faithful prosecution maintenance of important cases.”