Will the Expert Investigation Advisory Panel Meet as Planned Amid Choo-Yoon's Bid to Fight on Favorable Ground?

Minister Choo Mi-ae: "Will observe and decide"... Suggests invoking 'investigation command authority'
Big gap between Supreme Prosecutors' Office and Central District Prosecutors' Office over 'attempted coercion' establishment
Prosecutorial Investigation Deliberation Committee to be held on the 10th... Attention on whether a 'smoking gun' will be presented

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] As Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae hinted at the possibility of 'investigative command' over the prosecution, the convening of the Expert Investigation Advisory Panel (Advisory Panel), which is expected to be the target of such command, has become uncertain.

If the Advisory Panel, which is anticipated to reach a conclusion favorable to the two parties involved in the 'media-prosecution collusion' case?former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae and Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon?fails to convene, the determination of their criminal liability could be left to the Investigation Deliberation Committee, which is expected to reach an opposite conclusion.

The Ministry of Justice's Legal and Prosecution Reform Committee (Chairman Kim Nam-jun) has issued an urgent recommendation to immediately halt the convening of the Advisory Panel related to the media-prosecution collusion investigation.

The Advisory Panel scheduled to convene on the 3rd was convened by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl, while the Deliberation Committee meeting on the 10th was led by Lee Sung-yoon, head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office.

According to the Ministry of Justice and prosecution sources on the 2nd, some interpreted Minister Chu's statement at the National Assembly the previous day?"I have observed (Prosecutor General Yoon) until now, but if it becomes difficult to continue observing, I will make a decision"?as an indication of Yoon's position. However, the prevailing interpretation is that it signifies that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office will not tolerate the forced convening of the Advisory Panel. Minister Chu also criticized Yoon's decision to convene the Advisory Panel as having "lost procedural rationality."

Regarding the possibility of Minister Chu disallowing the convening of the Advisory Panel, a Ministry of Justice official said, "I don't know what the minister's decision will be, but she said, 'If corrective measures are necessary, I will take them,' and that a thorough investigation will be conducted to determine the issues, so we will have to wait and see what actions will be taken."

If the Advisory Panel convenes as planned, its members will examine the applicability of the 'attempted coercion' charges against Lee Dong-jae and Han Dong-hoon. Attempted coercion is established when threats are made but the obligated act is not performed, or when the threat itself remains an attempt.

In other words, even if Lee Cheol, former CEO of Value Investment Korea and the counterpart to Lee Dong-jae, did not actually feel fear from Lee Dong-jae's statement that "the investigation could expand to family members," the crime could be established if it is judged that there was a 'notice of harm.'

However, the Criminal Division staff at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office reportedly hold the view that Lee Dong-jae did not say, "If you do not cooperate, I will mobilize Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon to investigate your family," but rather conveyed that "the current prosecution investigation could expand to your family, but if you cooperate, I can help you receive leniency," meaning there was no notice of harm, and thus the threat itself cannot be recognized.

Additionally, considering that Lee Cheol is currently incarcerated and direct threats could not have been made, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's position is that the indirect threat was made through an agent, and the structural peculiarity that the notice of harm involved the influence of a third party, Han Dong-hoon, must also be taken into account.

Therefore, the Advisory Panel, composed of prosecutors and legal experts who strictly assess the requirements, is likely to conclude that "establishing the crime is difficult."

On the other hand, in Han Dong-hoon's case, it must also be proven that he conspired with Lee Dong-jae. The Supreme Court determines the establishment of joint principal offenders based on whether there was a shared awareness of the crime and whether each person divided roles and executed them, i.e., whether there was 'functional control over the act.'

Although it is not clear what conversations took place between the two, considering the disclosed content so far, including Han Dong-hoon's statement, "I am not interested in the Yoo Si-min issue," there is insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy. However, the key issue is whether the investigation team possesses any 'smoking gun,' such as audio recordings supporting this fact, among the undisclosed seized materials.

On this day, the Legal and Prosecution Reform Committee stated, "The convening of this Advisory Panel has been distorted into a tool for the prosecution leadership's 'covering their own members' and 'shaking the investigation of the involved parties,'" and recommended, "Immediately halt the convening of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's Expert Investigation Advisory Panel related to the media-prosecution collusion investigation."

They added, "The Prosecutor General should guarantee the fair exercise of prosecutorial power so that prosecutors can faithfully perform their duties, yet he insists on forcibly convening the Advisory Panel," and criticized, "This attitude causes public disappointment and anxiety toward the prosecution."

Meanwhile, the Deliberation Committee, convened upon the application of Lee Cheol, who claims to have been threatened by Lee Dong-jae, will be held on the morning of the 10th.

Unlike the Advisory Panel composed of prosecutors and legal experts, the Deliberation Committee includes citizens from various fields who, prior to legal judgment, may form a negative impression based solely on the basic facts that "the media colluded with the prosecution to extract something during the process of interviewing the incarcerated suspect," making it highly likely that they will vote for 'prosecution' on the grounds that "the case should be brought to trial for the court's judgment."

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