Most Disciplinary Reasons for Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol Are Internal 'Kangryeong' and 'Gyujeong' Violations... Personal Information Protection Act Violation Also Subject to Fine

Summary of Deliberations and Resolutions of the Disciplinary Committee

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae (left) and Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] It has been confirmed that the Ministry of Justice's Prosecutor Disciplinary Committee, which decided on a 'two-month suspension' penalty for Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, judged that most of the four disciplinary reasons cited as grounds for the penalty corresponded to violations of internal prosecutorial regulations or codes of conduct.

According to the 'Summary of Deliberations and Resolutions of the Prosecutor Disciplinary Committee' released on the 17th, the committee recognized four disciplinary reasons among the eight charges Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae cited for requesting disciplinary action against Prosecutor General Yoon: ▲ ordering the creation and distribution of a document analyzing the judiciary ▲ obstruction of inspection related to the Channel A case ▲ obstruction of investigation related to the Channel A case ▲ and damage to dignity through inappropriate remarks concerning political neutrality.

On the other hand, for two charges?▲ inappropriate exchanges with a media company owner and ▲ refusal to cooperate with inspection duties?the committee decided to 'not consider these as disciplinary reasons despite their existence' (non-inquiry decision), and for two other charges?▲ leakage of information related to the Channel A case inspection and ▲ obstruction of inspection related to former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook's case?it ruled as no charges.

The ‘Judge Document’ Judged as Violation of Statutory Law Is Also a Fine Matter... Unable to Specify Punishment Clause

The disciplinary committee viewed that Prosecutor General Yoon's order to create and distribute the 'judiciary analysis document' violated Article 15(1) and Article 17(2) of the Personal Information Protection Act, as well as Article 13-3(2) of the Code of Conduct for Prosecutors.

It was judged that the document was created and distributed with the purpose and intent to form a negative image of judges?such as 'teachers' union judge' or 'leftist judge supporting student movements'?to create unfavorable public opinion against the judiciary, attacking, slandering, or mocking the judiciary and turning it into a joke.

In cases of violating Article 15(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act, which limits the scope of personal information collection and use by personal information handlers, the law stipulates under Article 75(1)(1) that fines, not criminal punishment, can be imposed. Similarly, violating Article 17(2), which requires notifying the data subject when providing personal information to a third party, allows for fines under Article 75(2)(1).

The committee specified that the 'obstruction of inspection related to the Channel A case' violated Article 5 of the Code of Conduct for Prosecutors and Article 4 of the Rules on the Establishment and Operation of the Inspection Headquarters of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, but did not present any legal or regulatory violation grounds for the 'obstruction of investigation related to the Channel A case.'

In particular, regarding the order to create and distribute the 'judiciary analysis document,' the committee stated, "Even if the disciplinary suspect caused senior officials at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to perform such acts, aside from the issue of abuse of authority and obstruction of rights," thereby avoiding a legal judgment. Regarding the 'obstruction of inspection related to the Channel A case,' it emphasized that "the Prosecutor General abused his authority and violated his official duties," but withheld a clear judgment that it constituted a criminal offense of abuse of authority under the Criminal Act.

Finally, regarding 'damage to dignity through inappropriate remarks concerning political neutrality,' the committee only cited a Constitutional Court decision referencing Article 7(2) of the Constitution, which regulates political neutrality of public officials, without presenting clear violating legal provisions or regulations, concluding vaguely that "it should be considered an act damaging the dignity of the Prosecutor General concerning political neutrality."

Issues Concluded as ‘Non-Inquiry’ or ‘No Charges’ Were Emphasized as Serious Illegal Acts When Requesting Disciplinary Action...

Meanwhile, examining the committee's judgment on the remaining charges not recognized as disciplinary reasons, Minister Chu had considered them serious legal violations warranting criminal punishment and ordered investigations or inspections, citing them as grounds for disciplinary requests. However, many of these were found to lack substance.

Regarding 'inappropriate exchanges with a media company owner,' the committee stated, "While the exchange itself is acknowledged, the circumstances and purpose of the meeting, and the content of the conversation between the two are not clearly revealed. At that time, the related case investigation had concluded and was nearing the end of pleadings, and the connection to other criminal cases is unclear. Considering these points, it was judged that exercising disciplinary authority should be restrained."

Regarding 'refusal to cooperate with inspection duties,' the committee said, "Recognizing this part of the disciplinary request as a violation arising from the inspection process and basing disciplinary measures on it could rather undermine the essential meaning of this disciplinary request." It decided to non-inquire the facts that Prosecutor General Yoon refused to receive the visit investigation notice or effectively refused the visit investigation. This implicitly admits that these reasons were inappropriate as disciplinary grounds from the start.

Furthermore, regarding refusal to coordinate inspection schedules or refusal to cooperate with facility provision requests, the committee concluded, "It must be recognized that the disciplinary suspect (Prosecutor General Yoon) clearly understood that the schedule coordination was for a fact-finding inspection or definitively expressed an intention to refuse cooperation with facility provision requests. However, according to the disciplinary records, there is no evidence to support this," and closed the case with no charges.

Additionally, regarding 'leakage of information related to the Channel A case inspection,' the committee stated, "There is no evidence that Prosecutor General Yoon informed the media about receiving a text message from Han Dong-soo, head of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department, about the start of the inspection, or that the disciplinary suspect directly informed the media," and closed the case with no charges.

Regarding 'obstruction of inspection related to former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook's case,' the committee said, "Whether Prosecutor General Yoon's instruction to reassign the case to the Human Rights Department and send it to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office was appropriate is another matter. It cannot be considered a clearly illegal order. Although the case was transferred to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office as a copy, there is no evidence that Prosecutor General Yoon initially ordered or knew this. Considering these points, it is difficult to conclude that he violated or neglected his official duties to comply with laws," and closed the case with no charges.

Disciplinary Committee: “Serious Enough for Dismissal but Considered Prosecutor General” vs. Criticism: “Did You Not Even Verify Facts or Review Legal Grounds?”

The disciplinary committee explained the disciplinary measure of 'two-month suspension' by stating, "The disciplinary suspect's violations are serious enough to warrant suspension or dismissal according to disciplinary standards, and dismissal is possible overall. However, this case involves the Prosecutor General, an unprecedented case, and many special circumstances were considered."

However, in the legal community, as the summary of the disciplinary committee's deliberations and resolutions was disclosed, voices of criticism are rising, questioning, "How could they request disciplinary action against the Prosecutor General based on matters that were not properly fact-checked or legally reviewed?"

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