Daegum Publishes 'Internal Audit Regulations' for the First Time in 9 Years... Will Choo Oppose the 'Joint Inspection'?

Minister Chu Orders Joint Inspection, Prosecutor Yoon Says "Audit May Appear Involved in Investigation and Prosecution"
Prosecutors "Disclose Due to Criticism of Secrecy"... Legal Community Interprets as Emphasis on Illegality of Order

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Prosecutors' Office suddenly disclosed the previously confidential 'Internal Audit Regulations' of the prosecution. Earlier, Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol expressed the position that "audits by frontline offices may appear to be involved in investigation and prosecution" in response to Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae's order for an inspection. By revealing the internal regulation that audits of the prosecution are to be conducted and reported by the Prosecutor General, it appears to emphasize the impropriety of Minister Choo's directive.

According to the prosecution on the 6th, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office recently decided through an internal meeting to make public the previously undisclosed 'Internal Audit Regulations.' Established in 2011, the 'Internal Audit Regulations' contain standards and procedures for audits of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office and its affiliated institutions. It includes specific provisions on how audits are conducted, criteria for exemption from liability, and regulations related to disciplinary actions against prosecutors, which is why it was kept as an internal rule and not disclosed externally.

In the midst of conflicts with the Ministry of Justice over the legality of inspections, a Supreme Prosecutors' Office official said the reason for disclosing this regulation was "to respond to criticism that there are many undisclosed internal rules within the prosecution." However, since this decision was made less than ten days after Minister Choo ordered a joint inspection by the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, it seems to be interpreted as a public backlash against the Ministry of Justice.

Recently, prompted by the National Assembly audit, Minister Choo ordered an inspection into whether the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office dismissed the Optimus case in 2018 without charges, and whether there was concealment of misconduct and leniency in investigations related to the Lime case. In response, Prosecutor General Yoon opposed during the audit, stating, "Audits by frontline offices may appear to be involved in investigation and prosecution." He also expressed discomfort regarding the joint inspection ordered for the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department, saying, "The Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department is under the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor General, so this is somewhat one-sided."

Looking at the audit regulations recently disclosed by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, audits of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office and its affiliated institutions are to be conducted by the Prosecutor General. The regulations include the Prosecutor General's service policies and special instructions, and the head of the Inspection Department, who oversees audits, must report the audit results to the Prosecutor General.

It has been confirmed that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office is reviewing all related regulations in addition to the disclosed 'Internal Audit Regulations.' Discussions have also taken place regarding various interpretations of the Ministry of Justice's regulation that "Ministry inspections should be conducted secondarily after the prosecution's autonomous inspection to guarantee prosecutorial autonomy," as well as whether the Inspection Department can omit the process of receiving deliberation from committees or subcommittees before investigating important cases.

Regarding this, the Ministry of Justice stated, "We cannot confirm specific regulations or progress," but explained that "since the joint inspection has already been publicly ordered, coordination with the Supreme Prosecutors' Office is naturally necessary." The Ministry of Justice bases its argument on the Government Organization Act, which states that "the Prosecutor General is a public official subject to the Minister's command and supervision," and is expected to cite the Ministry's inspection regulations that allow the Minister to directly order inspections if the subject of inspection holds a position supervising the Inspection Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.

However, even if the joint inspection officially begins, the issue of to whom the results will be delivered must be addressed in advance. Since the Inspection Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office is under the Prosecutor General's command and supervision and the authority to request disciplinary action also lies with the Prosecutor General, controversies are expected regarding the scope of investigations each institution will handle, who will receive the final report, and who will exercise the disciplinary request authority. A lawyer formerly with the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department said, "Even if the joint inspection starts, legal disputes between the two institutions will inevitably continue throughout the investigation process and handling of the results."

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