Ruling and Opposition Judiciary Committee Members Complete On-Site Verification of Ministry of Justice and Prosecution Special Activity Funds... Opposite Positions on Verification Results

Seoul Seocho-dong Supreme Prosecutors' Office building.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] On the 9th, the ruling and opposition members of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee concluded the on-site verification of the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution's special activity expenses conducted at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.

After completing the verification, the ruling and opposition lawmakers each pointed out that the data submissions from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office and the Ministry of Justice were inadequate, and they expressed differing views on the verification results, including the allocation of special activity expenses to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. The sharply opposing positions between the ruling and opposition members raised the possibility of expanded verification across all prosecution offices nationwide.

The on-site verification, which began at 2 p.m. at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-dong, Seoul, ended around 5 p.m.

Participants in the on-site verification included six members from the ruling Democratic Party: Kim Nam-guk, Kim Yong-min, Park Beom-gye, Park Ju-min, Song Ki-heon, Choi Ki-sang, and Baek Hye-ryun; four members from the opposition People Power Party: Yoo Sang-beom, Yoon Han-heung, Jang Je-won, and Jeon Ju-hye; and Kim Jin-ae from the Open Democratic Party. It was reported that Baek Hye-ryun, the ruling party's Legislation and Judiciary Committee secretary, took charge of the special activity expenses verification.

From the Ministry of Justice, Vice Minister Ko Ki-young and Shim Jae-cheol, Director of the Prosecution Bureau, were known to have attended.

After completing the on-site verification, the ruling and opposition secretaries of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee showed completely different evaluations of the verification results, displaying a confrontational stance.

First, People Power Party lawmaker Kim Do-eup said, "The Minister of Justice and the Democratic Party raised the issue that 'Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol uses special activity expenses like petty cash,' and immediately ordered an inspection, leading to document verification at the committee level," adding, "We started with the Ministry of Justice and then moved to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, but the Ministry of Justice essentially did not submit any materials related to the execution of special activity expenses," he criticized.

Kim expressed dissatisfaction, saying, "There were only printed materials such as how much was given to the Human Rights Bureau, not documents showing who received the special activity expenses," and "There was no way to verify how the special activity expenses were actually used."

He added, "Since special activity expenses inherently require confidentiality, it is understandable that detailed usage cannot be confirmed, but at least it should be possible to verify which chief prosecutor or department head received the funds, yet the Ministry of Justice did not provide even that, and they gave the absurd response that they would disclose only as much as the Supreme Prosecutors' Office disclosed after seeing their level of disclosure," saying that the Vice Minister of Justice and the Director of the Prosecution Bureau were reprimanded over this.

During the on-site verification, when opposition lawmakers continued to criticize the scope of data submission by the Ministry of Justice, Shim Jae-cheol, Director of the Prosecution Bureau, reportedly responded that they would disclose information based on the level of disclosure by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, leading to a heated debate.

On the other hand, Baek Hye-ryun, the Democratic Party's Legislation and Judiciary Committee secretary, who left the building slightly later than Kim, countered, "It seems you are saying the Ministry of Justice's data was inadequate, but the Ministry of Justice and Supreme Prosecutors' Office data were almost at the same level," adding, "From my perspective, I did not feel much difference; rather, the Ministry of Justice had detailed records, whereas the Supreme Prosecutors' Office only had data by prosecution office," she argued.

The ruling and opposition parties also differed in opinion regarding the Ministry of Justice's execution of special activity expenses and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's allocation of special activity expenses to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office.

Kim said, "The problem with the Ministry of Justice is that special activity expenses are used as basic expenses in various bureaus or the Correction Headquarters," and added, "When I pointed out that 'basic expenses are not essentially meant to be covered by special activity expenses,' the Vice Minister of Justice admitted the mistake and said they would convert such parts to specific task expenses."

He further stated, "The bigger problem is the Ministry of Justice's Prosecution Bureau," explaining, "Although there are prosecutors and investigators, they do not conduct investigations or intelligence gathering, yet they spent 759 million won this year alone," and added, "The special activity expenses used by the Prosecution Bureau need to be disclosed in detail."

Meanwhile, Baek said, "Regarding the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office's special activity expenses, although I cannot disclose the amount, I think there was sufficient room for misunderstanding," and pointed out, "The total special activity expenses this year have been reduced by half compared to last year."

In response, Kim argued, "The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office uses 16% of the 9.2 billion won in special activity expenses nationwide," and said, "The total amount of special activity expenses has been decreasing every year."

He explained, "According to Deputy Chief Prosecutor Cho Nam-gwan's explanation, the special activity expenses for the Southern and Eastern District Prosecutors' Offices increased compared to the previous year, but the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office saw a significant decrease due to major ongoing cases such as the deep-rooted evils investigation and martial law documents case at the end of the year before last," adding, "But as you know, there are almost no ongoing major cases at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office now. Rather, the Eastern and Southern Districts have had many ongoing cases, so relatively, the special activity expenses for the Eastern and Southern Districts decreased significantly compared to the previous year, and the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office basically decreased as well, which I understood as a reduction compared to the previous year."

When Kim said, "If only the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office is being scrutinized unfairly, then let's do all prosecution offices nationwide at once. If there are parts where special activity expenses are misused, they must be corrected," Baek responded, "Then let's agree here. I also agree to review all prosecution offices nationwide," leading to a debate over additional verification of prosecution offices' special activity expenses.

This on-site verification was triggered by Minister Choo's remarks targeting Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol during the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's plenary session on the 5th, stating that "he uses special activity expenses like petty cash."

At that time, Minister Choo also said that the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office was facing difficulties in investigations due to insufficient special activity expenses, but it was later revealed through media reports that the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office had actually received the largest amount of special activity expenses among the financial district prosecutors' offices in Seoul until recently.

The following day, on the 6th, Minister Choo instructed the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department to "promptly investigate and report on the allocation and execution of the Prosecutor General's special activity expenses, including ▲comparative details of payments or allocations by each prosecution office and each department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office compared to the same period last year (including monthly details), and ▲details of any payments or allocations of 5 million won or more at one time to a specific prosecutor or department."

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