Controversy Over Appointment of Choe Kang-wook to Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Comparing 'Prosecutors Who Issued Joint Statement' to 'Dogs Barking at Their Owners'

Choi Kang-wook, Leader of the Open Democratic Party. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] On the 2nd, Choi Kang-wook, leader of the Open Democratic Party, who has been embroiled in a 'conflict of interest' controversy over his appointment to the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, appeared on a radio program and compared the prosecutors who issued a collective statement opposing Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae's disciplinary request and suspension of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl to dogs kicked out of the living room barking at their owner.

Choi also claimed that the court's decision to suspend the effect of Minister Chu's suspension order the day before was "contradictory in its reasoning" and argued, contrary to the court's position, that "the conditions for suspending the Prosecutor General's position are more relaxed compared to those for ordinary prosecutors." Regarding the disciplinary committee scheduled for the 4th, he raised suspicions, saying, "It seems that Yoon's side is using a kind of delay tactic," and "It appears that they contacted two of the three external committee members through certain channels to not attend."

Choi made these remarks during the 'Hook Interview' segment of the KBS1 radio program 'Joo Jin-woo Live' in the afternoon.

'Conflict of Interest' Controversy: "I Don't Understand Why Only I'm Being Targeted"

First, in response to the host's question, "You have returned to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, but the opposition party is shouting about a conflict of interest controversy, saying it affects the trial. What is going on?" Choi said, "They have always made unreasonable remarks. The opposition party is the People Power Party, and I have described it as 'spitting while lying down' in several places," adding, "I could say everything, but they seem to be in a position where they cannot respond to such remarks now."

He expressed dissatisfaction, saying, "In the past, Representative Kwon Seong-dong served as the chair of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee from the perspective of a defendant who was prosecuted, and currently, all those prosecuted in the Fast Track case are sitting on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and the same goes for election law violations," and "But I don't understand why only when it comes to my appointment to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, there is such sensitivity about conflicts of interest."

Choi added, "The person who sent Representative Park Deok-heum to the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee is the same person. There were even talks internally about appointing him as the chair, but they don't seem to be concerned about that, only sensitive about me going to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee."

Interpretation Completely Opposite to the Court's Reasoning for Suspending Minister Chu's 'Suspension Order'

Choi also expressed dissatisfaction with the court's reasoning for partially accepting Prosecutor General Yoon's suspension application and suspending the effect of Minister Chu's suspension order the day before.

He pointed out, "The content is contradictory. They say 'the disciplinary action will be taken soon,' but also say 'if this is left as is, it will effectively result in dismissal by July next year.' These statements are completely contradictory."

Choi argued, "The court's decision acknowledged that 'the minister clearly has authority,' 'democratic control must be exercised,' and 'the minister has personnel authority.' However, it also said 'this authority must be exercised very cautiously and with restraint,' because it concerns the Prosecutor General," and "But according to the law, the Minister of Justice can suspend the Prosecutor General's duties if deemed necessary, and the conditions for this are much more relaxed compared to the suspension of ordinary prosecutors."

He continued, "This is because the position of Prosecutor General is the head of the organization, responsible for leading it, and if that person participates in disciplinary procedures, the organization, which operates under that person as the apex, could suffer significant damage. There was concern that if the person under disciplinary suspicion maintains their position before the disciplinary process, they could use that position to carry out other acts."

He also emphasized, "This is already becoming a reality as soon as he returns to duty," giving examples such as approving the previously withheld request for an arrest warrant related to the nuclear power plant case investigation, and showing a stance of resisting to the fullest extent using his authority.

The Seoul Administrative Court's 4th Administrative Division (Presiding Judge Cho Mi-yeon) stated in its decision on Prosecutor General Yoon's suspension application, "If the Prosecutor General blindly obeys the Minister of Justice's command and supervision, the independence and political neutrality of prosecutors cannot be maintained," and "The exercise of the Minister of Justice's specific command and supervision rights over the prosecution, especially the Prosecutor General, must be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the purposes of maintaining legal order, protecting human rights, and democratic control."

Regarding the interpretation of Article 8, Paragraph 2 of the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act, which states that "the Minister of Justice may order the suspension of duties of a prosecutor under disciplinary suspicion when deemed necessary," the court emphasized, "When the subject of the suspension order is the Prosecutor General, the exercise of discretionary power must be more exceptional and under stricter conditions."

Choi's interpretation is completely opposite to this judicial interpretation.

Comparing Prosecutors Who Issued Collective Statements or Resigned to 'Dogs Kicked Out of the Living Room Barking at Their Owner'

When the host asked, "Some active prosecutors have told Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae to resign, and recently, prosecutors have collectively submitted resignations and expressed their opinions collectively. Didn't such things happen even during the Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye administrations?" Choi openly revealed his negative perception of prosecutors.

Choi said, "In the past, by coexisting with the prosecution and making a kind of deal, if you incorporate the prosecution as part of the power group, they behave quietly like very obedient pets," adding, "But now, when they are told 'Your place is not the living room but the yard to guard against thieves,' and the owner sends them back to their original role and place, they start barking at the owner, complaining 'Why don't you give me a warm blanket and delicious food?' and then begin to bite. That's the situation."

Not only prosecutors but also the Korean Bar Association, law professor groups, and even progressive civic groups have issued statements claiming that Minister Chu's disciplinary request and suspension of Prosecutor General Yoon are illegal and unjust. Prosecutors who risk personnel disadvantages to sign statements asking Minister Chu to reconsider were compared to dogs kicked out of the living room barking at their owner. This remark could be considered defamatory or insulting to individual prosecutors who participated in the collective statement or resigned.

Choi also said, "I think there are actually two psychological reasons why rank-and-file prosecutors or the prosecution group issue statements."

He explained, "First, above all, there is a logic among them that 'we must protect the interests of the prosecution' and 'we must defend the organization.' This seems to be an implicit logic accumulated among people who have lived as office workers. Secondly, and this seems to me to be a rather groundless worry, is the concern that if the Prosecutor General is pushed out regardless of the content, later, if a strange regime comes in regarding prosecution investigations, political neutrality might not be guaranteed," adding, "I want to believe that part is some kind of good intention."

Expecting Severe Disciplinary Decision at the Committee on the 4th... "Yoon's Side Using Delay Tactics, Contacted 2 External Members to 'Not Attend'" Allegation

Regarding the disciplinary committee postponed to the 4th, when asked, "What do you think the outcome will be?" Choi said, "I naturally expect a severe disciplinary action, but whether it can be concluded in one session on the 4th remains to be seen."

He alleged, "The accused Prosecutor General's side seems to be using a kind of delay tactic, trying to prevent the disciplinary committee from being formed by having disciplinary committee members not participate."

He continued, "They have openly declared that they will file recusals against the Prosecutor General's Office Director and the Head of the Anti-Corruption Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, who are supposed to be ex officio disciplinary committee members," adding, "Since the Minister cannot attend and the Vice Minister has just been appointed and started, if two recusals are filed, among the seven disciplinary committee members, three are external members, but it seems that two of the three were contacted through certain channels and asked not to attend. So those members are also considering their position."

Yoon's side stated that the Ministry of Justice did not accept the information disclosure request regarding the list of disciplinary committee members. In this situation, Choi's claim that "Yoon's side has already identified the external members and contacted two of them to not attend" requires verification of its authenticity.

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