Controversy Over the Prosecution Investigation Deliberation Committee... Prosecutors Say "No Problem" and Continue Investigations of Lee Jae-yong and Han Dong-hoon

Participation Solidarity Criticizes "President Runs As He Pleases," Prosecutors Respond "No Problem"
Legal Community: "Investigation Deliberation Committee's Opinion Must Be Respected for System Establishment"
Chairman Yang Chang-su: "Voices of Reasonable Citizens Should Be Reflected"

Seoul Seocho-dong Supreme Prosecutors' Office building.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The prosecution has directly refuted the criticism from civic groups that the “Prosecutorial Investigation Deliberation Committee (Investigation Deliberation Committee) is operated according to the Prosecutor General’s preferences.” However, the controversy remains as the prosecution appears not to respect the committee’s opinions in major cases.

According to the prosecution on the 14th, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office Economic Crime Division (Chief Prosecutor Lee Bok-hyun), which is investigating the ‘Samsung C&T merger’ allegations, has yet to reach a final conclusion even 49 days after the Investigation Deliberation Committee recommended ‘suspension of investigation and non-prosecution’ in this case.

Following the committee’s recommendation, the continuation of procedures such as meetings of chief prosecutors and consultations with economic experts has led some to express the view that the prosecution is seeking grounds not to accept the committee’s opinion.

Similarly, regarding Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon, who was recommended for ‘suspension of investigation and non-prosecution’ by the committee in the ‘media-prosecution collusion’ case, the same prosecution office’s Criminal Division 1 (Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-ung) is intensifying the investigation by conducting additional raids.

Contrary to the situation that seems to disregard the committee’s recommendations, the prosecution sparked controversy by publicly responding to civic groups’ inquiries criticizing the committee, stating that “there is no problem with the current system itself.”

The day before, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy released a press statement titled ‘Investigation Deliberation Committee operated according to Prosecutor General’s preferences,’ attaching the prosecution’s response to a public inquiry sent to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office last month regarding the committee.

According to the response, when asked, “Is it lawful for the Investigation Deliberation Committee, which is only an advisory body, to effectively make judicial judgments?” the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office replied, “The committee is composed of experts from various sectors of society to ensure fairness and political neutrality in prosecutorial procedures and results, and to enhance public trust.”

When asked, “Is it appropriate for the committee to deliberate complex cases in just one day?” the reply was, “Not only the chief prosecutor but also the parties involved submit statements, and (omitted) similar to a jury trial, a procedure is in place to ensure a reasonable conclusion through sufficient deliberation with only the chairperson and members participating.”

On the same day, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Planning and Coordination Department emphasized regarding the committee’s composition, “Among the 243 members including the chairperson, 120 are legal professionals (lawyers and law professors), and 122 are non-legal professionals. The appointments were not arbitrary but made based on recommendations from reputable figures in various fields of society.”

They also stated, “Claims that the committee was used by the prosecution to appease public opinion when necessary are untrue,” citing the case of Vice Chairman Lee as evidence that the committee operates autonomously and independently.

Meanwhile, in the legal community, while acknowledging the need to improve the current Investigation Deliberation Committee system, the prevailing opinion is that the system can be established if the prosecution shows maximum respect for the committee’s opinions. In this regard, there are many calls to specify regulations that require the prosecution to simply ‘respect’ the committee’s opinions more concretely.

Attorney A, a former prosecution official, pointed out, “Revising the guidelines to generally accept the recommendations but listing exceptional cases where recommendations may not be accepted is a way to avoid controversy.”

However, a prosecution official responded, “Issues related to the effectiveness of the committee’s recommendations cannot be resolved merely by revising the guidelines currently set as internal regulations of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office,” adding, “It requires a comprehensive revision of the legal system.”

Yang Chang-soo, chairperson of the Investigation Deliberation Committee, stated in a column published in the media that day, “Just as the jury system was introduced in criminal trials under the name of citizen participation trials to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the judiciary, the Investigation Deliberation Committee was established with the intention that ‘the voices of sensible citizens should be reflected even in the exercise of the prosecution’s strong authority.’”

He also emphasized, “From my experience as chairperson, there are indeed points that need improvement in the detailed operation since this is a first-time system, and we must listen to harsh external criticism. However, it is difficult to dispute the fundamental purpose of hearing the common-sense judgment of sensible citizens.”

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