[Full Text] Chu Mi-ae "Can No Longer Tolerate Prosecutor General's Performance of Duties"

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae is explaining the reasons for the disciplinary request and suspension of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol regarding the inspection results at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office press room in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 24th.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] On the 24th, Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae filed disciplinary charges against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl and suspended him from duty. This is an unprecedented event in constitutional history.

At an emergency briefing held at 6 p.m. at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office press room in Seocho-dong, Seoul, Minister Choo stated, "The Ministry of Justice has conducted direct inspections into various allegations of misconduct against the Prosecutor General, and as a result, confirmed multiple serious and grave allegations of misconduct against the Prosecutor General."

Minister Choo confirmed the following: ▲ inappropriate contact with media company owners ▲ illegal surveillance of trial panels in major cases including former Minister Cho Kuk’s case ▲ obstruction of inspection and investigation to protect close aides related to the Channel A case and former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook’s case, and trading of inspection-related information with the media ▲ violation of cooperation obligations and obstruction of inspection during the face-to-face investigation of the Prosecutor General ▲ serious damage to the dignity and trust of the Prosecutor General regarding political neutrality.

She added, "As the Minister of Justice, the highest supervisor of prosecutorial affairs, I have judged that it is no longer acceptable for the Prosecutor General to perform his duties as Prosecutor General."

Below is the full briefing by Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae.

Dear citizens, this is Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae.

Today, I report to the public with a very heavy heart that I have filed disciplinary charges against the Prosecutor General and ordered his suspension from duty.

The Ministry of Justice has conducted direct inspections into various allegations of misconduct against the Prosecutor General, and as a result, confirmed multiple serious and grave allegations of misconduct.

First, inappropriate contact with media company owners,

Second, illegal surveillance of trial panels in major cases including former Minister Cho Kuk’s case,

Third, obstruction of inspection and investigation to protect close aides related to the Channel A case and former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook’s case, and trading of inspection-related information with the media,

Fourth, violation of cooperation obligations and obstruction of inspection during the face-to-face investigation of the Prosecutor General,

Fifth, serious damage to the dignity and trust of the Prosecutor General regarding political neutrality.

Accordingly, as the highest supervisor of prosecutorial affairs, I have judged that it is no longer acceptable for the Prosecutor General to perform his duties as Prosecutor General, and today I have filed disciplinary charges against the Prosecutor General and ordered the suspension of his execution of duties.

The main allegations in the disciplinary charges against the Prosecutor General are as follows.

First, he violated the Prosecutor’s Code of Ethics by having inappropriate meetings with the owner of JoongAng Ilbo. Around November 2018, while serving as the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, he met Hong Seok-hyun, the de facto owner of JTBC, a party related to a case, at a pub in Jongno-gu, Seoul, engaging in inappropriate exchanges that could undermine fairness, thus violating the Prosecutor’s Code of Ethics.

Second, he is responsible for illegal surveillance of judges on trial panels in major cases. Around February 2020, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s Investigation Information Policy Office prepared and reported a report containing information such as ‘major political case rulings, membership in the Our Law Research Association, family relations, reputation, personal hobbies, and whether the judge caused controversy’ related to judges on trial panels for major cases including the Ulsan case and former Minister Cho Kuk’s case. He instructed that this be forwarded to the Anti-Corruption and Strong Crime Department, thereby collecting and using judges’ personal information and disposition data that the Investigation Information Policy Office could not collect, violating his official duties.

Third, he obstructed inspections related to the Channel A case and former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook’s case. First, regarding obstruction of inspection in the Channel A case, around April 2020, when the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department began an inspection to verify facts concerning his closest aide Han Dong-hoon and reported the start of the inspection, despite Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Headquarters Establishment and Operation Regulations stating that inspections should not be stopped unless the start is clearly unjust or beyond the scope of duties, he unjustifiably ordered the head of the Inspection Department to halt the inspection to obstruct the prompt inspection of Han Dong-hoon.

Furthermore, on June 4, 2020, despite delegating investigative command authority to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office chiefs’ meeting due to concerns over fairness because Han Dong-hoon, a party related to the Channel A case, had a close or special relationship, he forcibly convened a professional investigative advisory group and abused his command and supervisory authority unjustly, violating his official duties despite opposition from the investigation team and Supreme Prosecutors’ Office chiefs.

Next, regarding the former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook case, around May 2020, when the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department attempted to directly inspect the prosecutors involved in the investigation, he ordered the case to be transferred to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Human Rights Department and then to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office Human Rights Supervisory Office. When the head of the Inspection Department raised objections, the Deputy Prosecutor General asked the head of the Inspection Department to provide a copy of the complaint ‘for reference only.’ With the copy secured, through the Deputy Prosecutor General, he instructed the Human Rights Department to falsely state in an official document that the ‘Supreme Prosecutors’ Office complaint was transferred,’ as if the original complaint was transferred, and send it to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, thereby abusing the Prosecutor General’s authority and violating his official duties.

Fourth, he leaked inspection-related information about the Channel A case externally. Despite receiving multiple verbal reports from the head of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department about inspecting Han Dong-hoon related to Channel A, he opposed it. On the afternoon of April 7, 2020, while on leave, upon receiving a report from the head of the Inspection Department about the start of the inspection, he informed an unidentified person that ‘the head of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department unilaterally notified Han Dong-hoon of the inspection by text without verbal reporting,’ which was reported to the media early the next morning, thereby leaking inspection-related information externally and violating his official duties.

Fifth, he damaged the dignity and trust regarding political neutrality as Prosecutor General. The Prosecutor General’s position requires the highest level of public trust in political neutrality, and any words or actions that could raise suspicion are prohibited by the Constitution and laws, and the public believes so.

However, the Prosecutor General has been continuously suspected of engaging in political activities toward the presidency as a conservative presidential candidate. On October 22, 2020, during the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office National Assembly audit, he made remarks interpreted as declaring political participation after retirement. Even after polls showing him as the top presidential candidate and competing with leading ruling party candidates, he did not take truthful, active, and proactive measures to dispel distrust regarding political neutrality as Prosecutor General, effectively condoning or abetting it.

As a result, the majority of the public came to regard the Prosecutor General as a prominent politician or presidential candidate, losing the dignity and trust of the Prosecutor General regarding political neutrality. He has reached a point where he can no longer perform his duties as Prosecutor General.

Sixth, as a subject of inspection, he violated cooperation obligations and obstructed inspection. Regarding cooperation obligations, on November 16, 2020, the Ministry of Justice Inspection Office requested to coordinate a visit inspection schedule through the Prosecutor General’s secretary, but the secretary was instructed to refuse the response, and the request for schedule coordination was ignored, violating the Ministry of Justice Inspection Regulations by not cooperating with necessary inspection tasks.

The next day, on November 17, 2020, after being informed that two prosecutors would visit in the afternoon to deliver a visit inspection notice containing the schedule, the notice was placed in a sealed envelope. Upon their visit, the head of the Policy Planning Division was instructed to refuse receipt of the notice and told to say, ‘This is the Prosecutor General’s instruction; take notes and deliver it. If questions are formally submitted, we will respond in writing,’ thereby refusing receipt and violating the Ministry of Justice Inspection Regulations by not cooperating with necessary inspection tasks.

Additionally, on November 18, 2020, when the Ministry of Justice Inspection Office sent an official letter requesting facility provision necessary for the visit inspection, the Operations Support Division was instructed to refuse receipt of the letter, and the head of the Policy Planning Division was instructed to send a rebuttal letter, thereby refusing cooperation with the facility provision request and violating the Ministry of Justice Inspection Regulations.

Furthermore, on the morning of November 19, 2020, when the Inspection Office contacted the Prosecutor General’s secretary to confirm whether he would respond to the visit inspection scheduled for 2 p.m. that day, the secretary replied, ‘Please refer to the official letter sent by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Policy Planning Division. That letter is from the Prosecutor General to the Minister of Justice,’ effectively refusing the visit inspection and violating the Ministry of Justice Inspection Regulations by not cooperating with necessary inspection tasks.

This matter involved serious and complex misconduct, making a face-to-face investigation of the Prosecutor General, the subject of the allegations, absolutely necessary according to inspection principles. As mentioned earlier, the Prosecutor General clearly expressed refusal to the visit inspection multiple times, which was publicly known through the media. Consequently, the Ministry of Justice Inspection Office concluded that a face-to-face investigation of the Prosecutor General was practically impossible. Although a face-to-face investigation was not conducted, multiple objective evidence and clear testimonies from witnesses confirmed the allegations against the Prosecutor General.

It is the natural duty of public officials to cooperate with inspections conducted under the law, and I deeply regret that the Prosecutor General did not comply and obstructed the inspection.

Due to the very serious and grave nature of the confirmed allegations, I have inevitably filed disciplinary charges against the Prosecutor General today and ordered his suspension from duty. Although not included in the current disciplinary charges, we will continue to strictly investigate other allegations of misconduct.

Upon receiving the inspection results of the Prosecutor General, I was deeply shocked beyond words. I also realized once again that prosecutorial reform cannot be achieved by systems and laws alone.

I sincerely apologize to the public as the Minister of Justice, the person in charge of command and supervision, for not preventing the Prosecutor General’s misconduct in advance and not taking swift action, causing much concern to the public.

The Ministry of Justice will proceed with the disciplinary procedures strictly according to the principles and procedures stipulated in the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act.

Thank you.

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