Yoon's Inspection Prosecutor: "Judicial Surveillance Allegations Do Not Constitute a Crime"… Ministry of Justice Says "Investigation Needed"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] A prosecutor dispatched to the Ministry of Justice’s Inspection Office to handle the inspection of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol confessed that the suspicion of 'surveillance of the trial panel' does not constitute a crime. In particular, the prosecutor claimed that the content of his report was unilaterally deleted.

On the 29th, Prosecutor Lee Jeong-hwa of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office posted on the internal prosecution network in the afternoon, stating, "I concluded that the charges did not hold before the request for investigation against Prosecutor General Yoon, but it was deleted."

Prosecutor Lee, who was in charge of the legal review of the major case trial panel analysis document, wrote, "After reviewing and analyzing multiple rulings regarding the establishment of the crime of abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights, I concluded that it is difficult for the crime to be established."

Prosecutor Lee explained, "After requesting the prosecutors in the Inspection Office to review it as well, the conclusion was not different from mine, so I recorded it as is, and regarding the 'List of Judges Causing Controversy' section, I did not know under what circumstances such content was obtained, so I first attempted to contact someone who knows the background of its creation."

In particular, he said, "Shortly thereafter, a decision to suspend my duties was suddenly made," and "During the process of requesting an investigation against Prosecutor General Yoon, the content of the report I submitted was unilaterally deleted." He added, "Before and after the request for investigation, I was never told that a re-examination was necessary regarding the establishment of the crime of abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights, nor was there any indication of content errors, but parts of the report that were incompatible with the investigation request were deleted without reasonable explanation."

The Ministry of Justice immediately protested. The Ministry of Justice’s Inspection Office stated in a position paper, "While there was no disagreement that the document exceeded the scope of duties and could be seen as a disciplinary reason for violating the official duties of the Prosecutor General who has supervisory responsibility, there was a difference of opinion that it is difficult to conclude that the charges are established based only on the facts confirmed so far."

Regarding the claim that Prosecutor Lee’s report content was deleted, they explained, "In addition to the secured documents, there may be more similar judge surveillance documents, so we judged that a prompt compulsory investigation was necessary and requested an investigation," and "There is no fact that part of the report was deleted, and the legal review report finally prepared by the dispatched prosecutor is filed intact in the inspection records."

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