"Seo Ji-hyun Personnel Retaliation" Ahn Tae-geun to be Retried on Grounds of Not Guilty... "Difficult to See Abuse of Authority" (Comprehensive)

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Supreme Court has sent the case back to the second trial, ordering a retrial for former Prosecutor General Ahn Tae-geun, who was indicted on charges of retaliating against Prosecutor Seo Ji-hyun, whom he sexually harassed. The court ruled that the lower court misunderstood the law regarding the abuse of authority charge and rendered a not guilty judgment.

The Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Noh Jeong-hee) overturned the lower court's ruling that sentenced former Prosecutor Ahn to two years in prison on charges of abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights, and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court on the 9th. This Supreme Court decision came about two years after Prosecutor Seo revealed that she was sexually harassed in late January 2018.

In particular, the ruling was overturned because the court recognized that former Prosecutor Ahn, as a prosecutor responsible for personnel affairs, had the 'discretion' to judge the content himself when drafting and deciding personnel plans.

Former Prosecutor Ahn was tried on charges of improperly intervening in the process of transferring Prosecutor Seo, whom he had sexually harassed in the past, from the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office Yeoju Branch to the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office Tongyeong Branch in August 2015, while serving as the head of the Prosecutor's Office at the Ministry of Justice, overseeing prosecution personnel affairs. It was alleged that he tried to demote Prosecutor Seo out of fear that the sexual harassment would become known inside and outside the prosecution.

The first and second trials found former Prosecutor Ahn guilty of abuse of authority and sentenced him to two years in prison. However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed.

The Supreme Court found fault with the lower court's view that former Prosecutor Ahn's personnel placement constituted abuse of authority. "The process by which former Prosecutor Ahn transferred Prosecutor Seo from the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office Yeoju Branch to the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office Tongyeong Branch cannot be considered a violation of the 'principles and standards of prosecutor transfers' that would constitute 'compelling someone to perform an unnecessary act' under the crime of abuse of authority," it stated.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court broadly recognized the discretion of personnel officers in the prosecution. "Even practical personnel officers who assist or support the execution of duties related to prosecutor personnel affairs are granted certain authority and roles within that scope and can be considered to have discretion," it said.

The first and second trials stated, "Since the implementation of the system for assigning experienced prosecutors to branch offices without deputy chief prosecutors (like Prosecutor Seo), there has never been a personnel transfer to such a branch office," but the Supreme Court judged, "This system cannot be regarded as an absolute standard."

The 'Experienced Prosecutor Branch Office Assignment System' is a personnel principle where experienced prosecutors who have worked at three or more offices serve at small branch offices without deputy chief prosecutors, guiding junior prosecutors and receiving priority assignment of difficult cases, working intensively, and in return, their preferences are actively reflected in the next personnel transfer.

The Supreme Court emphasized, "'The Experienced Prosecutor Branch Office Assignment System' merely states that experienced prosecutors who have worked at branch offices are 'considered' in the next transfer, and there is no basis to regard it as having unilateral superiority over other personnel standards." It also ruled, "Former Prosecutor Ahn did not violate the 'principles and standards of prosecutor transfers' prescribed by law, and therefore, the crime of abuse of authority is not established."

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