Reporter Dongjae Lee's Side: "Warrant Court Deviated from the Principle of Equality"... "Mentioning Senior Prosecutors Also Inappropriate" (Comprehensive)

Former Channel A reporter Dongjae Lee is attending the warrant hearing held on the 17th at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The legal team of former Channel A reporter Dong-jae Lee, who was detained on the 17th following the issuance of an arrest warrant related to the ‘media-prosecution collusion’ allegations, has pointed out that the warrant court issued the arrest warrant based on facts not even stated in the prosecution’s warrant request, violating the principle of “불고불리” (no prosecution, no trial).

The principle of 불고불리 (不告不理 原則) is a criminal procedure law principle meaning “no prosecution, no trial,” which relates to the commencement of criminal trials. It dictates that the court can only begin hearings if the prosecutor files charges and can only judge based on the criminal facts stated in the indictment.

In particular, Lee’s legal team criticized the warrant judge for issuing the arrest warrant on the premise of a conspiracy relationship with Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon, which was not mentioned in the prosecution’s warrant request, citing the “seriousness of the matter,” and for publicly announcing this as the reason for issuing the warrant.

According to the legal community on the 19th, Lee’s lawyer released a statement titled “Position on the Issuance of the Arrest Warrant for Reporter Dong-jae Lee” the previous day, saying, “As a matter of respect for the judiciary, it is generally the principle not to issue separate statements on decisions such as the issuance of an arrest warrant. However, since there was a specific public announcement of the reasons for the warrant and subsequent media coverage, we express our position ‘to protect the rights of the suspect.’”

Lee’s legal team stated, “Although the warrant does not specify a ‘conspiracy relationship’ with Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon, the warrant court publicly announced that there is ‘evidence suggesting suspicion of threats connected to a high-ranking prosecutor,’ which we believe is problematic in light of the ‘confidentiality of investigation and warrant review’ and the principle of 불고불리, which requires judgment within the scope requested by the prosecution.”

They added, “Even the prosecution investigation team does not exclude the possibility that Lee acted alone, so it is unusual that the warrant court judged the matter as ‘very serious’ on the premise that ‘media-prosecution collusion’ existed.”

Lee’s legal team also argued, “Since the suspect mainly sent letters without directly confronting the victim, and the coercion attempt crime where harm was not realized is generally regarded in the legal community as ‘not a serious matter,’ we have never seen similar cases where an arrest warrant was issued.”

They emphasized, “Except for resetting his mobile phone and laptop before the investigation began, (Reporter Dong-jae Lee) has not engaged in any evidence destruction acts, nor coordinated with other related parties or instructed evidence destruction. Since the Channel A fact-finding investigation, no new direct evidence proving a conspiracy with high-ranking prosecutors has been secured, and the suspect still disputes the charges.”

Finally, Lee’s legal team stated, “Going forward, Dong-jae Lee will sincerely respond to the prosecution’s summons and hopes that judgments based on the principles of criminal procedure law and evidence will be made in the ‘investigation’ and ‘public trial.’ We will also participate in related procedures such as the Prosecution Investigation Review Committee to express our opinions.”

On the 17th, Kim Dong-hyun, the chief judge in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, issued the arrest warrant for Lee on charges of ‘attempted coercion’ and unusually disclosed detailed reasons for the issuance.

At that time, Judge Kim stated, “There is substantial evidence to suspect that the suspect attempted to threaten the victim by connecting with a high-ranking prosecutor to achieve a specific reporting objective,” and “Despite the seriousness of these charges, the suspect and related parties broadly destroyed evidence, obstructing the investigation, and there is a high risk of continued evidence destruction.”

He continued, “For the discovery of substantive truth and the restoration of trust in the media and prosecution, it is deemed unavoidable to detain the suspect at this stage.”

Compared to the usual practice where warrant judges mention reasons such as the degree of evidence for criminal charges and the possibility of flight or evidence destruction when approving or rejecting arrest warrants, the detailed and specific reasons disclosed by Judge Kim this time are indeed exceptional.

In particular, Judge Kim’s mention of ‘connection with a high-ranking prosecutor’ when issuing the arrest warrant for Lee can be interpreted as implying that the prosecution’s suspicion of a conspiracy with Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon has been sufficiently substantiated, which has led to a dominant reaction in the legal community that this is ‘unusual.’

The Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office (Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-ung) reportedly summoned Lee from the detention center the previous afternoon for a meeting to discuss future investigation schedules.

With the issuance of the arrest warrant for Lee, the significance of the results of the Prosecution Investigation Review Committee scheduled for the 24th has effectively diminished.

Since the judiciary, a judicial institution, has already stated through the warrant review that ‘the charges are substantiated and the matter is serious,’ it is widely expected that the current committee members attending the review will find it difficult to issue opinions such as ‘suspension of investigation’ or ‘non-prosecution’ regarding Lee or Prosecutor Han.

Lee’s arrest warrant issuance is also expected to intensify the prosecution’s pressure on Prosecutor Han, who has so far refused to comply with summonses.

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