Park Eun-jung: "Han Dong-hoon's Call Records Collected According to Law, Not Disclosed Externally"... Refutes 'Communication Privacy Act Violation' Allegations

Eunjeong Park, Inspection Officer at the Ministry of Justice.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Park Eun-jung, the Inspection Officer of the Ministry of Justice, rebutted on the 8th the controversy that arose from her disclosure of Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon's call records to the Inspection Committee during the meeting on the 1st, stating that it does not violate the Protection of Communications Secrets Act.

In a statement sent to reporters on the same day, Officer Park said, "The call records in question were lawfully collected in accordance with the Ministry of Justice's inspection regulations for the purpose of conducting an inspection investigation on Han Dong-hoon," and added, "They are lawfully attached to the inspection records concerning the Prosecutor General, which is a related misconduct inspection case, in accordance with the said inspection regulations."

He explained, "Article 18 of the Ministry of Justice Inspection Regulations stipulates that 'If necessary for misconduct investigation duties, the Ministry of Justice affiliated institutions and prosecution offices may be requested to submit related materials.' The Channel A case, which is part of the disciplinary reasons against the Prosecutor General, is a so-called ‘related misconduct inspection case’ discovered during the inspection investigation of Han Dong-hoon, and just as communication fact confirmation data can be used for related criminal investigations, it can also be used for the investigation of related misconduct inspection cases in accordance with the inspection regulations."

While explaining that the data collection was conducted according to the law, Officer Park also denied that the information was disclosed externally.

He stated, "The Protection of Communications Secrets Act stipulates that ‘communication fact confirmation data shall not be disclosed or leaked externally,’ but since the data was prepared as explanatory material regarding all disciplinary reasons against the Prosecutor General during the Ministry of Justice affiliated Inspection Committee’s non-public meeting, explained to the committee members, and all materials were retrieved, it does not constitute ‘external’ disclosure or leakage," and argued, "Therefore, there is no possibility of violating the Protection of Communications Secrets Act."

He added, "It is a lawful act under laws and duties and cannot be problematic at all."

Since the disclosure was made during a non-public meeting, it cannot be considered external disclosure, and even if it were deemed an act violating the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, it would be a lawful act exempting criminal liability under criminal law.

Officer Park also claimed, "Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act states that ‘No one shall disclose or leak externally any information learned through communication fact confirmation data,’ so the possibility of violating the Protection of Communications Secrets Act lies rather with the person who disclosed or leaked the information learned during the Inspection Committee’s non-public meeting."

In other words, it is not that he violated the law, but that the person who revealed externally that he mentioned such facts during the Inspection Committee meeting is the one who may have violated the Protection of Communications Secrets Act.

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