Police: "Lawyer Reporting Coercive Investigation Referred with Indictment Opinion, Not Retaliation"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Song Seung-yoon] The police have stated that there was "no fact of approaching the matter from a retaliatory perspective" regarding the decision to send a lawyer who raised 'coercive investigation allegations' related to the 2018 oil depot fire incident in Goyang, Gyeonggi Province, to prosecution with an indictment opinion. This explanation appears to be in response to repeated criticisms of 'retaliatory investigation' from lawyer organizations.

The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency announced on the 10th, "The case was comprehensively reviewed for facts and legal principles by the Yeongdeungpo Police Station, resulting in a non-prosecution decision for defamation charges and sending the case to prosecution with an indictment opinion for violation of the Personal Information Protection Act."

The police emphasized, "During the investigation of the case, there was absolutely no fact of approaching it from a retaliatory perspective regarding the coercive investigation allegations or the media tip-off, as reported."

They added, "This morning, we visited the Korean Bar Association and provided detailed explanations about the case progress to association officials," and "We plan to make efforts to fully guarantee the right to counsel and the suspect's right to defense during the investigation process."

Earlier on the 8th, the Yeongdeungpo Police Station in Seoul sent lawyer A, who had tipped off the media about coercive suspect interrogation by an investigator from the Goyang Police Station in Gyeonggi last May, to the prosecution with an indictment opinion for violating the Personal Information Protection Act.

Lawyer A is known to have provided footage used in a broadcast report about the Goyang oil depot explosion incident to the media. The report covered allegations that the police conducted coercive interrogation of foreign worker suspect B during the investigation. The footage contained human rights violation circumstances such as the investigator’s informal speech, profanity, and forced statements.

Immediately after the report, the police who investigated the case filed complaints against lawyer A and the reporter from the broadcasting station at the Yeongdeungpo Police Station. The reason was that the footage was handed over to the media without voice modulation or mosaic processing, and the reporter broadcast it as is.

Lawyer A expressed opposition to the police decision on the 4th through his blog. He claimed, "The footage was recorded by the police according to the Criminal Procedure Act and obtained from the Uijeongbu District Prosecutors’ Office Goyang Branch through the information disclosure procedure."

The Korean Bar Association and other lawyer organizations simultaneously issued statements demanding, "Immediately stop retaliation against lawyers." On the same day, the Lawyers for a Democratic Society criticized, "Sending the case with an indictment opinion is a direct interference with the lawyer’s defense activities and is an act of criminalizing a matter that is clearly a lawful act under criminal law."

Meanwhile, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea had judged that the police forced suspect B to confess during the investigation process. The commission recommended that the police chief take disciplinary action against the staff and conduct job training related to suspects.

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