Investigation Review Committee's Recommendation to "Stop Investigation and Not Prosecute Han Dong-hoon" Complicates Calculations for Prosecutor General Lee Sung-yoon

A Prosecutor General Faces Reluctance to Indict Without Clear Additional Evidence
Attention on Whether Same Decision Will Be Made on Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong's Case and Acceptance of Investigation Deliberation Committee's Recommendation
Calls for Legal Elevation of Investigation Deliberation Committee Regulations to Improve the System

Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon delivering his inaugural speech at the inauguration ceremony held on January 13 at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-dong, Seoul.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Prosecution Investigation Deliberation Committee, composed of external experts, has complicated the calculations of Lee Seong-yoon, head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, who has been investigating the ‘collusion between prosecution and media’ case, by passing opinions to ‘halt the investigation’ and ‘not to prosecute’ Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon.

On the 17th, former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae was arrested, and there were even expectations around the prosecution that the investigation team would proceed to secure custody of Prosecutor Han following his summons. However, as the majority of the members attending the committee’s current affairs panel expressed the opinion that ‘the investigation should be stopped altogether,’ it became uncertain whether the prosecution could continue the investigation based on the premise of collusion between the two.

If the prosecution fails to indict Prosecutor Han and obtain a guilty verdict, ignoring the opinions of practical officials such as the head of the Criminal Division at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office that “it is difficult to establish complicity in attempted coercion,” Lee, who has been pushing for a forced investigation against Prosecutor Han, effectively defying Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl, will inevitably suffer a fatal blow. Furthermore, Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae, who carried out a demotion-like personnel reshuffle against Prosecutor Han and stripped Prosecutor General Yoon of his command over this investigation to empower Lee, is also expected to face criticism for “issuing an excessive investigative directive to pressure Prosecutor General Yoon.”

According to the legal community on the 25th, the Investigation Deliberation Committee, convened at the request of former VIK CEO Lee Cheol, who was identified as a victim in the ‘collusion between prosecution and media’ case, recommended continuing the investigation and prosecuting former reporter Lee, while 10 out of 15 members attending the vote expressed opinions to ‘halt the investigation’ and 11 expressed opinions of ‘non-prosecution’ regarding Prosecutor Han.

The current affairs panel, composed of external experts, reached this conclusion even after reviewing evidence such as recorded conversations presented by the investigation team as proof of collusion between former reporter Lee and Prosecutor Han. Given the recent KBS false report incident and the fact that the prosecution does not appear to have any other definitive ‘smoking gun’ evidence besides the recordings of conversations between the two parties disclosed by former reporter Lee’s side, speculation arises.

◆Is it possible to indict former reporter Lee Dong-jae and Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon simultaneously?=Having already secured custody of former reporter Lee, the prosecution has just over ten days left until the expiration of the detention period.

Under normal circumstances, the investigation team would have reviewed the custody issue for Prosecutor Han during this period, either requesting an arrest warrant to secure custody or conducting supplementary investigations and then proceeding with joint prosecution aligned with the expiration of former reporter Lee’s detention period.

However, given that the Investigation Deliberation Committee recommended not only ‘non-prosecution’ but also ‘halting the investigation,’ it seems unlikely that the prosecution will forcibly request an arrest warrant for Prosecutor Han.

Nonetheless, immediately after the committee’s conclusion was made public, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office stated that “considering that forensic analysis of the mobile phone seized from Prosecutor Han has not yet begun and that the suspect has not been interrogated even once,” they expressed an opinion to ‘continue the investigation,’ suggesting that the investigation team is unlikely to halt the investigation against Prosecutor Han despite the committee’s recommendation.

Prosecutor Han also appears to have anticipated this situation, responding to a question from a current affairs panel member at the committee about his thoughts by saying, “I believe this absurd situation is meant to serve as an example of what happens when an investigation opposed by power is conducted. Even if this committee decides not to prosecute me, I think the Ministry of Justice and the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office investigation team will try to arrest or indict me.”

However, to ignore the committee’s recommendation and proceed with investigation and prosecution against Prosecutor Han, more definitive evidence of collusion that has not yet been revealed seems necessary. While it is uncertain what additional evidence might emerge during the forensic analysis of Prosecutor Han’s mobile phone, the legal community’s consensus is that the currently disclosed recordings alone are insufficient to implicate Prosecutor Han as an accomplice in attempted coercion against former CEO Lee.

◆Collusion between prosecution and media vs collusion between politics and media (or power and media): the outcome= The outcome of this investigation could have significant ripple effects not only on the Yoon Seok-youl-led prosecution but also on Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae and pro-government politicians.

Since MBC’s first report on March 31, this case has been framed as ‘collusion between prosecution and media,’ and the ruling party has continued attacks on the entire prosecution led by Prosecutor General Yoon, suggesting that Prosecutor Han is not the only one involved.

In particular, when the investigation team reported plans to request an arrest warrant for former reporter Lee, Prosecutor General Yoon ordered a legal review by the Criminal Division staff at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office and decided to convene a professional investigation advisory group, which increased criticism of Yoon’s ‘protecting his close associates.’

However, as it became known that Mr. Ji Mo, who tipped off MBC about this case, had a past record and that pro-government figures such as Open Democratic Party leader Choi Kang-wook and Supreme Council member Hwang Hee-seok supported Mr. Ji behind the scenes, suspicions began to arise that the actual substance of this case might be the exact opposite of ‘collusion between prosecution and media’?namely, ‘collusion between politics and media’ or ‘collusion between power and media.’

Especially among the ruling party, which began to regard Prosecutor General Yoon as an ‘enemy’ following the investigation of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk, an increasing number of legal professionals reasonably suspect that the investigation is an excessive attempt to push out Prosecutor General Yoon by using Prosecutor Han, who is considered one of Yoon’s closest aides, as a tool.

The committee’s recommendation is not binding. Therefore, the investigation team is not obligated to halt the investigation or refrain from prosecuting Prosecutor Han based on the committee’s recommendation.

However, what is clear is that if the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office investigation team fails to find more definitive evidence of collusion and cannot indict Prosecutor Han, or if they ignore the committee’s recommendation and proceed to trial but fail to obtain a guilty verdict, this case is likely to be concluded not as collusion between prosecution and media but as a case where a reporter’s excessive investigative zeal went in the wrong direction.

Conversely, in such a case, a new task for the prosecution could be to investigate the collusion between politics and media that attacked Prosecutor Han without solid evidence of collusion with former reporter Lee and pressured Prosecutor General Yoon to resign.

In particular, the ‘false report incident’ by KBS the day after former reporter Lee’s arrest, which reported statements not found in the recordings as if they were made by Prosecutor Han, is difficult to avoid criticism that the pro-government media, aiming to damage Prosecutor Yoon, whom the regime considers a thorn in its side, carried out malicious reporting against Prosecutor Han without proper fact-checking.

Voices of reflection have emerged within KBS, and they have begun verifying sources who provided the recordings. Given that there have been complaints from civic groups, it is essential to clarify through prosecution investigation who caused this false report incident. If a member of the current Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office investigation team or a prosecutor in the command line is confirmed as a source, suspicions of collusion between power and media could become a reality.

◆Attention on whether Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office Chief Lee Seong-yoon will follow the committee’s opinions on Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong and Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon= Lee Seong-yoon is contemplating whether to follow the committee’s recommendation to ‘halt the investigation and not prosecute’ Prosecutor Han, while also considering the judicial handling of Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong, for whom a similar recommendation was previously made.

It has already been a month since the committee’s result on Vice Chairman Lee was announced.

There are four possible scenarios: ▲Respect the committee’s recommendation and not prosecute either Vice Chairman Lee or Prosecutor Han ▲Ignore the committee’s recommendation and prosecute both Vice Chairman Lee and Prosecutor Han ▲Not prosecute Vice Chairman Lee but prosecute Prosecutor Han ▲Prosecute Vice Chairman Lee but not prosecute Prosecutor Han.

However, none of these choices seem easy. Not prosecuting either Vice Chairman Lee or Prosecutor Han would be tantamount to self-denial for the prosecution, effectively admitting problems in the investigation process, such as the previous arrest warrant requests.

On the other hand, ignoring the committee’s recommendation and prosecuting unconditionally is equally burdensome, as the prosecution appears not to have secured definitive evidence proving collusion for either Vice Chairman Lee or Prosecutor Han.

Finally, choosing to prosecute one and not the other, despite the committee’s identical recommendations for both, is likely to spark controversy over fairness, questioning why the committee’s opinion is ignored for only one person and what criteria are used to accept the committee’s opinions.

Within the legal community, voices are growing to revise the current prosecution regulations (guidelines) governing the Investigation Deliberation Committee system into law, explicitly enumerating exceptional cases in which the prosecution can refuse to accept the committee’s opinions.

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