Prosecution Weighs Whether to Drop Appeal in 'West Sea Official Shooting Cover-Up' Case

Park Cheolwoo, Chief Prosecutor, Returns Investigation Team's Appeal Opinion
Court Issued Arrest Warrant for Suh Hoon Three Years Ago, Citing "Substantiated Allegations"
Concerns Rise Over Possible Repeat of "Daejang-dong Appeal Abandonment" Incident

Former National Security Office Director Suh Hoon, who was prosecuted on charges of attempting to cover up the shooting incident involving a government official in the West Sea in 2020, is leaving the courtroom after being acquitted at the sentencing trial held on the 26th at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

The prosecution is deliberating whether to appeal the acquittal of key security officials from the Moon Jae-in administration, who were found not guilty in the first trial regarding suspicions of a cover-up in the West Sea government official shooting incident. The deadline for appeal in this case is January 2. There are even concerns that a situation similar to the abandonment of the appeal in the Daejang-dong development corruption case could be repeated.

According to the legal community, it is rare for the prosecution to forgo an appeal in cases where all defendants have been acquitted. The prosecution's reasoning is that, since the court's ruling contradicts the results of the investigation, the existence of a crime should be contested in a higher court.

It has been reported that Park Cheolwoo, Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, returned the investigation team's report containing the opinion to appeal, resulting in no final decision being made by the appeal submission deadline on this day. Park is said to have instructed that further analysis of the reasons for acquittal in the ruling is necessary. An official from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office stated, "It is true that the appeal has not yet been submitted, but it is difficult to say who made what decision at this point."

In major cases, the prosecution typically reports the investigation team's opinion on appeal or further appeal to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, so Acting Prosecutor General Koo Jahyun is also believed to be aware of the situation. Ultimately, the decision rests with Acting Prosecutor General Koo and Chief Prosecutor Park. If both decide to forgo the appeal, it is expected that the prosecution will once again be embroiled in controversy.

Previously, on December 26, the first trial acquitted Suh Hoon, former Director of the National Security Office at the Blue House, Park Jie-won, former Director of the National Intelligence Service, Suh Wook, former Minister of National Defense, Kim Honghee, former Commissioner General of the Korea Coast Guard, and Noh Eunchae, former Chief of Staff to the Director of the National Intelligence Service, who were indicted on charges including abuse of authority.

The court found all the charges brought by the prosecution to be unsupported by sufficient evidence and ruled them not guilty. The court determined that it was difficult to see that Suh and others attempted to conceal the shooting and burning incident or to frame it as a defection to North Korea.

This case is gaining support for the opinion that an appeal is necessary, as even the courts have been divided in their judgments. In December 2022, after a 10-hour warrant review, the court issued an arrest warrant for Suh, citing the seriousness of the crime, his position, and his relationships with those involved, and stating there was a risk of evidence being destroyed. This suggested that there was some substantiation of the allegations that he had ordered the deletion of intelligence or directed efforts to portray the incident as a defection to North Korea to the relevant ministries.

A lawyer who previously served as chief prosecutor commented, "Even if there is a risk of evidence destruction or flight, an arrest warrant is not issued unless the crime is substantiated," and added, "It's not that prosecutors and judges have different views, but rather that the judges themselves have differing opinions, which is why this issue needs to be contested."