[Column] The 'Uri Pyeon' Appointed by the President

Seokjin Choi, Head of the Legal Affairs Team

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] On the 20th, a report from ruling party sources revealed that Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye pressured Senior Presidential Secretary for Civil Affairs Shin Hyun-soo during discussions on high-ranking prosecution personnel appointments, asking him in essence, "Why don't you stand on our side?"

Although Minister Park neither confirmed nor denied this, the exact words exchanged between the two remain unknown. However, it is clear that Senior Secretary Shin had objections to the retention of Seoul Central District Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon and the promotion of former Ministry of Justice Prosecutor General Shim Jae-cheol to head of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office. This stance of his appears to have led to him being bypassed by Minister Park in the personnel appointments and ultimately to his resignation.

Minister Park's notion of "our side" likely broadly refers to President Moon Jae-in, who appointed him as minister, or the pro-Moon (친문, Chinmun) faction and the broader ruling coalition. Narrowing the scope to the justice and prosecution sectors, it probably means those opposing Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, such as former Ministers of Justice Cho Kuk and Choo Mi-ae and the prosecutors supporting them.

If Minister Park indeed mentioned "our side" while discussing the positions of Prosecutor Lee or former Director Shim before the appointments, it is a serious matter. Even if he did not openly express this, if such intentions were conveyed to Senior Secretary Shin, that alone is cause for concern.

The Minister of Justice still directs prosecution investigations into major crimes such as corruption, economic crimes, and crimes by public officials, even after the adjustment of investigative authority between the police and prosecution. It is unacceptable that the concept of "our side" is ingrained in the mind of someone in such a position and that this thinking serves as the most decisive criterion in conducting nationally important public duties like high-ranking prosecution personnel appointments.

Who can guarantee that such bias will not influence prosecution investigations? It is natural for the public to doubt whether prosecutors appointed as "our side" under such criteria can wield their authority fairly against "the other side."

Of course, Minister Park also holds a political office as a ruling party member of the National Assembly, and the Minister of Justice is a political appointment, so he cannot help but consider the president's intentions and the ruling party's stance. For this very reason, the Prosecutors' Office Act restricts the Minister of Justice to only directing and supervising the Prosecutor General regarding specific cases.

While the minister has general supervisory authority over all prosecutors, safeguards prevent the minister from directly influencing the investigation of individual cases handled by district prosecutors or investigating prosecutors.

However, former Minister Choo Mi-ae broke this system. She disregarded the intent of the Prosecutors' Office Act by stripping the Prosecutor General of his command over several specific cases and effectively directing investigation directions at district prosecutors' offices.

Now, the Minister of Justice can not only direct specific cases through the Prosecutor General as prescribed by law but can also exclude the Prosecutor General from duty at any time and assign investigations to "our side" prosecutors who follow him.

This is why Minister Park's "our side" remarks are even more concerning.

Since former Minister Choo's tenure, it has become familiar that being "our side" takes precedence over ability and character in prosecution personnel appointments. Although Senior Secretary Shin's resignation and the resulting discord within the Blue House were exposed to the public through this appointment, ultimately, the ruling party succeeded in placing definite "our side" figures in the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office and Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office, which handle the country's most important cases.

Similar incidents have recently occurred in the judiciary.

Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo is under intense resignation pressure from opposition parties after a recorded conversation was released in which he mentioned considering the "political situation" regarding the ruling party's push to impeach Busan High Court Judge Im Seong-geun, whose resignation he refused last year.

After the recording of Judge Im was released on the 4th, exposing his lie within a day, Chief Justice Kim cited "unclear memory" as an excuse. However, no one believes that he genuinely forgot such a rare experience of mentioning impeachment during a meeting with a high-ranking judge who had expressed intent to resign just nine months ago. It is highly likely that this is another lie born from the previous one.

His statement released the day before, about two weeks after the incident, was inappropriate and disappointing in both form and content.

First, the title of his statement posted on the court's internal network and released to the media was "A Message to the People and the Court Family," not a "Public Apology." It should have been an apology, not just a message.

The content is even more shocking.

According to the recording released by Judge Im, during a meeting on May 22 last year, Chief Justice Kim said, "Putting aside the legal aspects of accepting or submitting a resignation, I have to consider various influences and the political situation," and "If I accept the resignation now while the ruling party is making a fuss about impeachment, what would I hear from the National Assembly?"

Despite this self-recorded statement revealing that he considered "political situations such as impeachment discussions in the National Assembly," Chief Justice Kim stated in his recent statement, "I want to clearly state that there was no political consideration as some have claimed."

The fact that he clearly said, "I have to consider various influences and the political situation," while dissuading Judge Im from submitting his resignation is confirmed by physical evidence in the form of the recording. Yet, Chief Justice Kim denied any political consideration without providing any evidence.

Not only opposition lawmakers but also many citizens view Chief Justice Kim's past remarks and this "false explanation" as a serious blow to the judiciary's independence and political neutrality, demanding not an apology but his resignation. The statement he released after much deliberation appears too weak and lacking in sincerity. It is difficult to understand how the public is supposed to interpret it?whether to believe it or not.

Moreover, it is ironic that while under pressure to resign over political neutrality controversies, he emphasized his mission as guaranteeing "good trials" by "independent judges" in such a weak statement.

In the personnel appointments made earlier this month, he retained Presiding Judge Yoon Jong-seop, who handled cases related to the "judicial scandal," including former Deputy Chief of the Court Administration Office Lim Jong-heon, and Presiding Judge Kim Mi-ri, who handled former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk's case and the Blue House's alleged election interference in Ulsan, at the Seoul Central District Court.

Judge Yoon has remained at the Seoul Central District Court for six years, and Judge Kim for four years. Although their continued assignment to important cases is unusual, it is a fact. Both have been suspected of conducting trials in directions favored by the ruling party based on their past actions and trial processes.

On the 18th, the Seoul Central District Court's case allocation committee decided to allow both judges to continue presiding over their current cases, a decision widely seen as reflecting Chief Justice Kim's intentions.

Beyond the prosecution and judiciary, the ruling party's "our side" is visible in various places.

Under the banner of "prosecution reform," the police, who gained investigative authority by abolishing prosecutors' command over investigations and taking charge of most investigations, are struggling to cover up an incident where Deputy Minister of Justice Lee Yong-gu, considered "our side" by this administration, assaulted a taxi driver while intoxicated.

Conversely, those judged not to be "our side" have faced indiscriminate attacks, including calls for resignation.

Former Environment Minister Kim Eun-kyung was recently sentenced to prison and detained for abuse of power, accused of forcing resignation submissions from executives of public institutions under the Environment Ministry appointed by the previous administration. Although there was a list created to deliberately expel those not considered "our side," the Blue House explained that it was not a "blacklist" because the term did not appear in the court's explanatory documents.

Chairman Choi Jae-hyung of the Board of Audit and Inspection, who carried out the constitutionally mandated task of "administrative and public official duty inspection," was labeled as "the other side" for opposing the president's policies and faced relentless attacks from ruling party lawmakers.

Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol and Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, who played key roles in investigating the "state manipulation" and "judicial scandal" cases during the previous administration and received full support from President Moon and the ruling party, were suddenly branded as enemies of the current administration for investigating allegations of academic fraud involving the children of former Minister Cho Kuk and his spouse, who were sentenced to prison in the first trial. This confirmed that being "our side" is not guaranteed under any circumstances.

When Prosecutor General Yoon and Chairman Choi step down, it is highly likely that definite "our side" figures will be appointed in their places. Are "reform," "fairness," and "our side," which President Moon so ardently wished for and emphasized, not completely incompatible and alien terms?

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