[Law & Story] Minister Jeong Seongho and Acting Prosecutor General No Manseok Must Resign for Failing to Shield Against Political Pressure

Minister Jeong Calls Daejang-dong Probe a "Successful Investigation"
Inexplicable Justification for Directing Prosecution to Drop Appeal
Contradicts His Own Recent Stance on "Forfeiture"
Unified Calls Within Prosecution for Acting Prosecutor Gene

Seokjin Choi, Law & Biz Specialist

The prosecution ultimately failed to submit an appeal in the first trial of the Daejang-dong case, sparking intense backlash both inside and outside the prosecution.

The main private sector figures in the case, such as Kim Manbae, the majority shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu Asset Management, accountant Jung Younghak, and attorney Nam Wook, received sentences that fell far short of the prosecution’s recommendations. Furthermore, only 6% (47.3 billion won) of the 781.4 billion won in forfeiture calculated by the prosecution was recognized, yet the prosecution decided not to appeal.

On the 10th, Minister of Justice Jeong Seongho attempted to explain, stating, “Two individuals actually received sentences higher than the prosecution’s recommendations,” implying there was no issue with the sentencing. However, the fact that former Seongnam Development Corporation Planning Director Yoo Donggyu and attorney Jeong Minyong each received sentences one year higher than the prosecution’s recommendations is more accurately attributed to the prosecution’s relatively lenient sentencing requests for these two, given their cooperation during the investigation, rather than the severity of their crimes.

For Kim, who faced the highest recommended sentence (12 years in prison and 611.2 billion won in forfeiture), the court handed down 8 years in prison and only 42.8 billion won in forfeiture-less than one-tenth of the prosecution’s figure. Jung, the accountant, who was recommended 10 years in prison and 64.7 billion won in forfeiture, received only 5 years in prison and zero forfeiture. Nam, the attorney, who was recommended 7 years in prison and 101.1 billion won in forfeiture, was sentenced to 4 years in prison and zero forfeiture. Is the fact that two out of five defendants received sentences higher than the prosecution’s recommendations a valid reason to abandon the appeal?

In response to criticism that giving up the appeal has blocked the path to recovering over 700 billion won in criminal proceeds, Minister Jeong countered by saying, “Seongnam Development Corporation, which is defined as the victim in this case, can prove and recover damages through a civil lawsuit.” This not only contradicts the Ministry of Justice’s policy of “pursuing and recovering criminal proceeds to the end,” but also completely opposes the position he himself expressed just 20 days earlier.

On October 22, Minister Jeong posted on his Facebook page, under the title “Requesting the National Assembly to swiftly legislate an ‘independent forfeiture system’ in relation to the Cambodia situation,” stating, “Under the current criminal justice system, there are significant limitations in promptly confiscating criminal proceeds and returning them to victims,” and “Under the current system, criminal proceeds can only be recovered and returned to victims if there is a ‘guilty verdict against the defendant.’” Despite being fully aware that a guilty verdict in a criminal trial is practically required for the state to recover criminal proceeds or return them to victims, he changed his stance for this case. Even the court noted that recovering damages through civil litigation appeared difficult in this case.

Above all, the prosecution should have contested in the appellate court the first trial’s decision not to apply the aggravated punishment clause of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, on the grounds that “it is difficult to calculate the specific gains from the breach of trust by the defendants at the time of the crime,” despite most charges being acknowledged. Given the gravity of the case and past precedents, an appeal was clearly warranted. As a former attorney, Minister Jeong could not have been unaware of this fact.

The Democratic Party of Korea claims that both the Daejang-dong case and the North Korea remittance case are “fabricated investigations” by the prosecution targeting President Lee Jaemyung. In this context, it is noteworthy that Minister Jeong, a former Democratic Party lawmaker and one of President Lee’s closest associates, assessed this trial as “a successful investigation and a successful trial.” Minister Jeong stated that there were no issues with the prosecution’s investigation or the court’s guilty verdict in the Daejang-dong case, which contrasts with the stance of hardliners in the Democratic Party, including Representative Jeong Cheongrae.

While calling it a “successful investigation,” Minister Jeong’s attempt to justify blocking an appeal in a case where an appeal was clearly necessary inevitably led to lengthy explanations. His initial response of “I don’t know” to a media inquiry about the decision to forgo the appeal when the controversy first arose, and his insistence at the press briefing that “I did not order the abandonment of the appeal but instructed careful consideration,” both suggest that he was aware that giving up the appeal was unjustified. Although, by law, the Minister’s investigative directives to the Prosecutor General must be in writing, if he reversed the united position of the investigation team, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor, and the acting Prosecutor General in favor of an appeal, what else could that be but an exercise of command?

This trial is directly related to President Lee’s currently suspended trial. For that reason alone, such an unusual decision should have been avoided to prevent unnecessary misunderstandings. This is fundamentally different from the previous reversal of position regarding the pace of abolishing the prosecution service or separating investigative and prosecutorial powers. As the highest supervisor of prosecutorial affairs under the Prosecutors’ Office Act, Minister Jeong must take responsibility for failing to shield the prosecution from political interference and for issuing directives that went against his own conscience.

Even more incomprehensible than Minister Jeong’s actions is the conduct of acting Prosecutor General No Manseok (Deputy Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office). Unlike the Minister of Justice, who mediates between the Presidential Office, the government, the ruling party, and the prosecution, the Prosecutor General is supposed to stand firm against political pressure. While Jeong Jinwoo, Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, was irresponsible for failing to appeal on principle and resigning, acting Prosecutor General No’s attempt to justify his decision-admitting to pressure from the Ministry of Justice to abandon the appeal, yet claiming, “It was a decision made after careful consideration in consultation with the Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office,” and “Given the difficult situation facing the prosecution and relations with Yongsan and the Ministry of Justice, I had to comply”-makes it clear why the prosecution service is now facing the threat of abolition.

Except for a few prosecutors with pro-government leanings, chief prosecutors, district prosecutors, and prosecutors nationwide are unanimously calling for acting Prosecutor General No’s resignation. Never in the history of the prosecution has a Prosecutor General faced simultaneous calls for resignation from so many prosecutors. Having succumbed to outside pressure and issued improper directives as the head of the prosecution, the only answer for the acting Prosecutor General is to step down.

As a result of these events, President Lee now finds himself in a much more favorable position in the upcoming Daejang-dong trial. On the other hand, the sincerity of the prosecutorial and judicial reforms pursued by President Lee and the Democratic Party, both so far and going forward, is now under serious doubt. If this is the current state of affairs, when the prosecution service is abolished and a Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (SCIA) is established under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, will the Minister of the Interior and Safety and the head of the SCIA, both appointed by President Lee, really be able to resist political pressure?

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.