Today’s ‘Geom-eon Yuchak’ Reporter Lee Dong-jae’s Warrant Hearing... Chu Mi-ae & Lee Seong-yoon vs Yoon Seok-yeol, Who Was Right? First Court Judgment

Entrance of Channel A headquarters, Jongno-gu, Seoul.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The warrant hearing for former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae (35), who was arrested on charges of attempted coercion related to the ‘media-prosecution collusion’ allegations, will be held on the 17th.

With the Prosecutorial Investigation Deliberation Committee (Investigation Deliberation Committee) scheduled to convene on the 24th regarding this case, the court’s decision is expected to have a decisive impact not only on the committee but also on the overall future prosecution investigation, drawing keen attention to the outcome.

Seoul Central District Court’s Chief Judge Kim Dong-hyun, in charge of warrants, will hold the warrant hearing for former reporter Lee at 10 a.m. that day to examine the necessity of detention during the investigation.

Lee is accused of threatening former VIK CEO Lee Cheol during the investigation of the ‘Shinrajen allegations,’ boasting of his close relationship with Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon and implying that failure to report corruption suspicions involving Rho Moo-hyun Foundation director Yoo Si-min could result in criminal disadvantages.

The Criminal Division 1 of Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office (Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-ung) applied the charge of attempted coercion to former reporter Lee and requested an arrest warrant on the 15th.

Initially, the investigation team planned to request the warrant last month, but opinions were divided among the top officials of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, and the warrant request was postponed after Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol decided to convene a professional investigation advisory panel.

Subsequently, Seoul Central District Prosecutor General Lee Seong-yoon proposed to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office to halt the convening of the professional investigation advisory panel and to guarantee the investigation team an independent investigation equivalent to that of a special prosecutor.

Although it was a proposal in form, since it publicly opposed the decision of the Prosecutor General, it was widely regarded as Prosecutor General Lee’s ‘insubordination’ toward Prosecutor General Yoon.

However, the situation was resolved when Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae halted the convening of the professional investigation advisory panel through investigation command and stripped Prosecutor General Yoon of his command authority over the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office investigation team.

Prosecutors around the case expect that since former reporter Lee and Prosecutor Han have expressed their intention to submit written opinions directly to the Investigation Deliberation Committee on the 24th and possibly appear in person to present their statements, the investigation team will take the next steps after reviewing the committee’s results.

However, the investigation team, guaranteed independent investigative authority, abruptly requested the arrest warrant on the 15th, ahead of the Investigation Deliberation Committee.

This could be seen as confidence in proving the charges, but considering the repercussions if the court rejects the warrant, it can be evaluated as a risky ‘all-in’ move.

The warrant hearing is a procedure to determine the necessity of detaining the suspect during investigation or trial.

Therefore, the degree of proof of the applied charges naturally forms the basis of this judgment, but the ‘possibility of flight or evidence destruction’ acts as a more important criterion.

The prosecution is expected to argue that former reporter Lee’s resetting of his cellphone and laptop after the controversy broke is already an attempt to destroy evidence, and that detention is essential to prevent collusion with other suspects such as Prosecutor Han and to stop further evidence destruction.

On the other hand, Lee’s side is likely to counter, as stated immediately after the warrant request, that “the resetting of the cellphone and laptop occurred before the investigation began and was a measure to report to sources.”

Moreover, legal experts are divided on whether Lee’s actions legally constitute ‘coercion’ under criminal law, and since the act itself was an attempt without actual harm, they are expected to argue that detention is unjustified.

Both former reporter Lee and Prosecutor Han have claimed that the whistleblower Ji Mo, who represented former CEO Lee, conspired with ruling party politicians and the media (MBC) to trap them using a fabricated ‘lobby list’ as bait.

The court’s decision is expected to be decisively influenced by evidence such as the recorded transcripts submitted by the prosecution.

The prosecution has secured recordings from searches, including conversations directly between former reporter Lee and Prosecutor Han, phone calls between Lee and whistleblower Ji, and calls with fellow reporters involved in the case.

If the court finds the prosecution’s evidence sufficient and deems it necessary to investigate former reporter Lee under detention, issuing the arrest warrant, the prosecution’s investigation is likely to accelerate rapidly.

Members of the Investigation Deliberation Committee participating on the 24th are also unlikely to ignore the court’s decision and recommend ‘investigation suspension’ or ‘non-prosecution.’

Prosecutor Han, who has reportedly refused summonses so far, may also be summoned for questioning even before the committee convenes.

Conversely, if the arrest warrant is rejected, Prosecutor General Lee, who pushed the investigation forward even showing insubordination toward Prosecutor General Yoon, is expected to suffer a fatal blow.

Although there remains a chance for the investigation team to regain momentum depending on the committee’s deliberation results, it is clear that the prosecution investigation will inevitably be constrained for the time being.

Furthermore, if the arrest warrant is rejected, Justice Minister Choo, who stripped Prosecutor General Yoon of his command authority over this case through investigation command, criticizing Yoon’s decision to convene the professional investigation advisory panel amid divided opinions among prosecutors regarding the establishment of the ‘attempted coercion’ charge against former reporter Lee, is also expected to face setbacks.

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