Kwak Sang-do Signals Legal Action Against Prosecutors After Daejang-dong Indictment Dismissed in First Trial

"Prosecution's Abuse of Indictment Power, Should Become a Turning Point for Institutional Reforms"

Yonhap News Agency

Former lawmaker Kwak Sang-do, who had been indicted on charges of "concealing bribes" in connection with the Daejang-dong development project, has decided to take legal action against the prosecution after the first-instance court dismissed the indictment. In a statement released on the 7th, Kwak's attorney said, "We plan to file a civil claim for damages and a criminal complaint over the illegal conduct of the prosecutors, who abused their prosecutorial power to bring an unjust indictment."

The attorney continued, "The illegality of the prosecution's indictment should have been determined at an early stage of the trial, but that did not happen," adding, "Even if a dismissal of the indictment is belatedly handed down, it offers no remedy to a defendant who has been indicted through an abuse of prosecutorial power."

He stressed that, after the second indictment, 18 hearings were held over a period of 2 years and 3 months, during which examinations of 25 witnesses and the defendant's examination had to be completed.

Kwak's attorney pointed out that there is no system of interlocutory judgment or preliminary hearing procedure in Korea's criminal procedure system, and added, "We hope that this case will serve as an opportunity to address and improve the institutional shortcomings in criminal procedure."

He went on to say, "We hope the prosecution will stop further entrenching its illegal conduct through an appeal and stop aggravating the harm suffered by the defendant, who has incurred irreparable damage from the exercise of state power," urging the prosecution to withdraw its appeal.

The previous day, the 23rd Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Oh Se-yong) dismissed the indictment against former lawmaker Kwak, who had been brought to trial on charges of violating the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

The court stated, "Instead of going through the appellate procedure in the defendants' prior case, the prosecutor arbitrarily exercised the right of prosecution with the intention of overturning the result by effectively obtaining a first-instance judgment twice through a separate indictment," and held that "this constitutes an abuse of the right of prosecution."