Supreme Court: "Prosecutor General's Office that warned Prosecutor Jin Hyewon... Must Respect Prosecutor General's Discretion"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that the warning issued by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Headquarters to Jin Hyewon, Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office, during her tenure at the Jeju District Prosecutors' Office was not unlawful.

The Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Park Sang-ok) announced on the 2nd that it overturned the lower court's ruling, which had ruled in favor of Prosecutor Jin in her lawsuit against the Prosecutor General seeking cancellation of the warning, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court. The court held that even if the misconduct related to investigative affairs is minor, the Prosecutor General may issue a warning if deemed inappropriate.

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Headquarters issued a warning to Prosecutor Jin in October 2017 during an integrated audit of the Jeju District Prosecutors' Office. The reason was the improper handling of about 20 investigative affairs. At the time, the Inspection Headquarters stated, "We sternly warn you for neglecting your duties as a prosecutor by improperly handling investigative affairs such as requests for search and seizure warrants."

However, Prosecutor Jin opposed the disposition, claiming it was retaliation for her whistleblowing. She argued that the Inspection Headquarters targeted her after she raised issues such as the withdrawal of a search and seizure warrant request she submitted to the court in June of that year by Kim Hansoo, then Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Jeju District Prosecutors' Office. She also contended that other prosecutors who made similar mistakes were not reprimanded and that there were procedural defects in the collection of audit materials, asserting that the Inspection Headquarters exceeded and abused its discretion.

The first and second trial courts accepted Prosecutor Jin's claims and ruled to cancel the warning. In particular, the second trial court stated, "Even if the audit results are valid, there is no basis to recognize that the prosecutor neglected duties to the extent that it constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act," and pointed out that "the disposition is unlawful as there are no grounds for it."

The Supreme Court found the lower court's ruling to be incorrect. The court stated, "If the handling of individual cases by a prosecutor violates internal standards of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office or is deemed inappropriate under the circumstances, and the Prosecutor General evaluates and imposes penalty points accordingly, the court must respect this." It further explained, "The lower court misinterpreted the legal principles regarding the Prosecutor General's supervisory authority, which affected the judgment and constitutes a legal error."

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