Anti-Corruption Commission: "Choo Mi-ae Should Not Have Conflict of Interest in Son's Investigation"... "Whistleblower Military Duty Soldier Is Not a Public Interest Reporter" (Comprehensive)

Assemblyman Seong Il-jong: "Expected Conclusion"... "Chairwoman Jeon Hyun-hee Unqualified"
Party Staff Soldier Hyun-mo Applies for Whistleblower Protection Measures

On the 14th, Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae attended the government-related questions session in the National Assembly plenary hall, responding to lawmakers' inquiries.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) has determined that there is no recognized ‘conflict of interest’ relationship between Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae and the prosecution’s investigation into her son.

The ACRC also judged that Private on Duty Hyun Mo, who reported the allegations, does not qualify as a ‘whistleblower’ under the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (Anti-Corruption ACRC Act) or the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers.

Response to Lawmaker Seong Il-jong’s Request for Legal Interpretation:
No Job-Relatedness, So No Conflict of Interest Established

According to the response materials received by People Power Party lawmaker Seong Il-jong from the ACRC on the 14th, the ACRC stated, “Although Minister Chu is a private stakeholder with her son, it is judged that there is no specific job-relatedness.”

The ACRC explained, “To determine a conflict of interest case, it is necessary to review whether two conditions are met: whether there is a private stakeholder and whether there is a job-related person,” adding, “After confirming the facts with the prosecution office, we received a reply stating that ‘there was no report of the case concerning the Minister of Justice’s son to the Ministry of Justice, nor was there any exercise of command authority.’”

Based on the ACRC’s fact-checking, since only one of the two conditions?private stakeholder or job-relatedness?was met, it is difficult to regard it as a conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, the ACRC reported that the Ministry of Justice did not respond to the fact-checking request.

Earlier, on the 3rd, Lawmaker Seong requested a legal interpretation from the ACRC on whether the prosecution’s investigation into Minister Chu and her son constitutes a conflict of interest, and whether Minister Chu’s phone call to the military through an aide to resolve her son’s leave complaint violates the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

Subsequently, the ACRC stated, “Before the legal interpretation, we are confirming the facts regarding Minister Chu’s involvement or influence in the prosecution investigation,” and “We plan to conduct a fair and strict legal interpretation after the fact-checking process.”

Does Not Fall Under 284 Legal Types Defined by Relevant Laws... Not Included in the Concept of ‘Whistleblower’

Regarding the inquiry on whether Private on Duty Hyun, who raised the special leave allegations concerning Minister Chu’s son, qualifies as a public interest whistleblower, the ACRC reportedly responded, “A public interest whistleblower is not a concept defined by law,” and “Hyun does not qualify as a ‘reporter’ under the laws governed by the ACRC.”

Article 55 (Reporting of Corrupt Acts) of the Anti-Corruption ACRC Act states, “Anyone who becomes aware of corrupt acts may report them to the Commission.”

Article 56 (Reporting Obligations of Public Officials Regarding Corrupt Acts) of the same law stipulates, “Public officials who become aware of corrupt acts committed by other public officials in the course of their duties, or who have been coerced or solicited to engage in corrupt acts, must promptly report to investigative agencies, the Board of Audit and Inspection, or the Commission.”

Article 57 (Duties of Reporters) defines “persons who have reported corrupt acts under Articles 55 and 56” as ‘reporters.’

Additionally, the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers defines ‘public interest infringement acts’ in Article 2 (Definitions) Clause 1, and its annex lists 284 laws, including the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, Personal Information Protection Act, Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Building Act, and Unfair Competition Prevention Act, whose punishable acts are subject to public interest reporting.

Ultimately, a ‘public interest whistleblower’ is someone who reports public interest infringement or corrupt acts to legally designated reporting agencies, and the ‘special leave allegations’ raised by the private on duty do not fall under this category.

Private on Duty Hyun Applies for ‘Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Measures’ to ACRC;
Lawmaker Seong Il-jong Strongly Opposes

Meanwhile, Private on Duty Hyun applied for public interest whistleblower protection measures to the ACRC on the same day.

After Democratic Party lawmaker Hwang Hee publicly disclosed his real name on Facebook on the 12th, Hyun appears to have applied for these measures due to malicious criticism received via social networking service (SNS) messages from some netizens.

Public interest whistleblowers can request restoration or other necessary measures from the Commission if they suffer disadvantages due to their whistleblowing; however, Hyun has not made a public interest report related to the special leave allegations concerning Minister Chu’s son.

However, the ACRC is reviewing whether Hyun qualifies as a corruption reporter or a cooperating person eligible for protection and compensation, as corruption reporters can also receive protection measures by analogy under the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act, even if Hyun does not qualify as a ‘public interest whistleblower’ under relevant laws.

The ACRC reportedly deferred judgment on People Power Party lawmaker Lee Young’s inquiry regarding whether the allegations of Minister Chu’s daughter’s visa issuance request to France and her son’s leave extension request constitute violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

Regarding the ACRC’s response on this day, Lawmaker Seong criticized, “This was an expected conclusion from the start, as they delayed with a simple legal interpretation,” and added, “Chairperson Jeon Hyun-hee, who denied even the job-relatedness recognized during former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk’s case, no longer qualifies to be the Chairperson of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission.”

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