Ministry of Justice "Regrets Suspension of Inspection Department Investigation... Equivalent to Chief Prosecutor's Order"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Ministry of Justice expressed regret over the Supreme Prosecutors' Office assigning the investigation of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol's abuse of authority charge, related to the 'judge surveillance' suspicion, which was under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department, to the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office.

On the 8th, the Ministry of Justice stated, "We express regret that after the Prosecutor General's reinstatement, the investigation into the judge surveillance by the Inspection Department was interfered with through the Human Rights Policy Office citing procedural investigation reasons, ultimately leading to the suspension of the Inspection Department's investigation."

Earlier, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Human Rights Policy Office announced that it detected circumstances where Han Dong-su, head of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department, obtained the 'court analysis document' through an unknown route and delivered it to the Ministry of Justice. It was understood that reasons to doubt fairness and legitimacy were found during this process. The detailed content indicates that the head of the Inspection Department obtained the 'court analysis document' through an unknown route, delivered it to the Ministry of Justice, and then received it back as reference material for the investigation, raising concerns about fairness and legitimacy.

In particular, "It was confirmed that the head of Inspection Division 3, under the direction of the head of the Inspection Department, based on the above investigation reference material, violated legal reporting obligations by registering an unidentified person as a suspect, and, with the cooperation of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office Digital Forensics Team, conducted a search and seizure of the Investigation Information Office, frequently informing Ministry of Justice officials about the progress, thereby failing to comply with due process," the statement said.

In response, the Ministry of Justice immediately pushed back. "The instruction by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to assign the case of illegal judge surveillance suspicion to the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office is effectively equivalent to an order from the Prosecutor General, considering the timing and circumstances of the instruction," it said. It added, "Since it appears to have been unilaterally decided without consultation with the responsible department, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department, and given that it was assigned to the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, which handles inspection cases, despite being an investigation case under the jurisdiction of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, it is difficult to see this as a measure that meets the public's expectation for a thorough investigation." Additionally, it mentioned suspicions that "Deputy Prosecutor General Jeong Jin-ung was forcibly prosecuted in relation to the Channel A case."

A Ministry of Justice official stated, "After receiving a detailed report on the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's measures, we plan to promptly take necessary actions considering the importance of this case and the need for a fair and thorough investigation."

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