Choo Mi-ae and Han Dong-soo's Excessive Defense of Jung Jin-woong... Growing Criticism Within the Prosecution

Chief Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon (left) and Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong of Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Voices of criticism are growing within the prosecution over the fact that Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-ung of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office has not been suspended from duty for more than 20 days since being indicted on charges of assaulting Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon during a search and seizure operation, resulting in injury (violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes for official violence).

Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae, who redefined the ‘Channel A coercion attempt’ case as a ‘media-prosecution collusion’ case and excluded Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol’s authority to supervise the investigation, along with Han Dong-soo, head of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department who sided with Minister Chu, are forcefully protecting Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong, the head of the investigation team for the case, but there is dissatisfaction that this is an ‘unprecedented’ situation.

On the 17th, there were grumblings within the prosecution about Minister Chu and Inspection Department Chief Han’s passive stance on suspending Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong from duty and disciplining him.

The core issue is that a senior prosecutor indicted for a crime related to his duties continues to perform his duties, and that the individual in question is part of Minister Chu’s faction.

The day before, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong Yu-mi, who serves as the human rights supervisor at the Bucheon Branch, posted on the prosecution’s internal network titled ‘To the Head of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department,’ stating, “If a current prosecutor is not just a simple suspect but has been indicted and become a defendant, it is only natural that they be excluded from their duties,” and pointed out, “Is it reasonable for prosecutors and staff to work under the command of a defendant currently on trial?”

According to the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act, the Prosecutor General can request the Minister of Justice to order suspension from duty for prosecutors expected to face dismissal, discharge, or suspension, and the Minister of Justice may order suspension of duty for the accused when deemed necessary.

According to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, “Prosecutor General Yoon requested the suspension of Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong’s duties ‘according to law, principles, and precedent,’ and most prosecutors indicted on duty-related charges have had their duties suspended.”

Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong also directly criticized an inspection department chief, a former judge, who disclosed internal decision-making processes related to inspections on social networking services (SNS), saying, “You revealed the internal opinion coordination process of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office on SNS. I am surprised by the boldness of the disclosure method and again by the boldness of the content. Is it the case in courts that even if a judge is indicted and becomes a defendant, the trial proceeds?”

Jeong Hee-do, who served as head of the Inspection Division 2 at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office until January, harshly criticized the inspection department chief’s actions as subject to inspection in a post on the prosecution’s internal network on the same day.

Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong said, “I wonder if it is acceptable for the head of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department to recklessly disclose inspection-related matters and decision-making processes on SNS,” and pointed out, “I understand that prosecutors should not disclose work-related matters or decision-making processes externally. This is not only a basic professional ethics as a prosecutor but also considered an inspection matter.”

He also demanded, “Please establish clear detailed standards for the act of voluntarily requesting inspection and disclosing work-related matters on SNS.”

A current prosecutor A said, “Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon was excluded from duty just on suspicion without indictment, but isn’t it too lenient because he is on our side?”

Another prosecutor B said, “If the Minister of Justice does not trust the prosecution’s indictment, who will trust the prosecution’s investigation?” and criticized, “The Channel A case and the official violence case should be judged separately, but (Minister Chu) seems to be viewing them as connected.”

On the 12th, Minister Chu rejected Prosecutor General Yoon’s request to suspend Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong’s duties based on an MBC report suggesting that the chief prosecutor in charge was negative about Jeong’s indictment, and instead ordered the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department to investigate the indictment process at the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office.

However, immediately after the report, the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office stated that there was no prosecutor within the investigation team who held a non-indictment opinion, and Myung Myeong-sik, head of the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department who indicted Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong, reiterated in a post on the prosecution’s internal network the day before, “There was no opinion to dismiss the case (official violence charge), and all prosecutors agreed that indictment was inevitable.”

While the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office investigation team has yet to indict or dismiss Prosecutor Han, the suspension or disciplinary action against Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong, who was indicted on duty-related criminal charges, is likely to be delayed until the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department releases its investigation results confirming no issues in the indictment process at the earliest, or until the criminal trial results of Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong at the latest.

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