'Debate Over Expanded Meeting on Han Myeong-sook Case Retrial... In the Hands of Cho Nam-gwan'

Only 6,000 Pages of Inspection Records, Main Debate Possible Only in the Afternoon... Im Eun-jeong Researcher’s Remarks Could Be a Variable

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The retrial debate over the 'Han Myeong-sook perjury suspicion' case has begun. Initially, the scope expanded with the participation of frontline high prosecutors at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office chief meeting. Given the divided opinions, the final decision is expected to be made by Acting Prosecutor General Cho Nam-gwan.

According to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on the 19th, the meeting started at 10 a.m. at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office building. It was just two days after Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye ordered a review of the possibility of indicting inmate Kim, who was identified as having been coerced into false testimony.

It is known that Acting Prosecutor General Cho Nam-gwan and seven chief prosecutors at the prosecutor general level all attended the meeting. To ensure fairness in the review, Acting Prosecutor General Cho proposed including high prosecutors in the chief meeting, and Minister Park agreed, so six high prosecutors nationwide were also included.

Due to the inspection records amounting to 6,000 pages, substantive discussion is expected to be possible only in the afternoon. The day before, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office allowed attendees to review investigation and trial records of former Prime Minister Han's case, petitions and statements from inmates claiming perjury, but there was insufficient time to fully grasp all the records.

The final conclusion will be decided by majority vote according to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office regulation, 'Guidelines on the Operation of Consultative Bodies for Rational Decision-Making,' with a total of 14 members, including Acting Prosecutor General Cho, expected to cast votes. However, Acting Prosecutor General Cho, who presides over the meeting, and Inspection Chief Han Dong-su involved in the case may abstain from voting.

In the legal community, among the Supreme Prosecutors' Office chiefs, Inspection Chief Han, Anti-Corruption and Strong Crime Division Chief Shin Seong-sik, Public Investigation Division Chief Lee Jeong-hyun, Criminal Division Chief Lee Jong-geun, and Trial and Litigation Division Chief Go Kyung-soon are classified as pro-government. On the other hand, the high prosecutors previously issued a statement during former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl's disciplinary incident, condemning it as "a violation of the prosecution's political neutrality," so they are likely to join the non-indictment decision agreed upon by most Supreme Prosecutors' Office officials in this meeting. This means that a majority decision is not easily reached by simple calculation.

The variable is Im Eun-jeong, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Policy Research Officer. Since Minister Park emphasized for two consecutive days to "listen to the opinions of Chief Han and Research Officer Im," neutral attendees at the meeting may change their perspective on this case depending on the tone of Im's remarks.

Due to insufficient discussion time, it is highly probable that Acting Prosecutor General Cho will make the final decision on indictment based on the meeting results. Previously, the Ministry of Justice stated, "The meeting is to enable the Acting Prosecutor General to make a rational decision based on it," and "Minister Park will accept whatever decision is made."

Acting Prosecutor General Cho, as the final person responsible for the previous dismissal of charges, is unlikely to overturn his own judgment. Moreover, criticism continues within the prosecution regarding Minister Park's exercise of investigative command rights, calling it "an absurd directive ignoring legal procedures." Prosecutor Chun Jae-in of Suwon District Prosecutors' Office has even demanded a live broadcast of the meeting through E-Pros, stating, "As a member of the prosecution, I have the right to know what problems exist in a case confirmed by the Supreme Court and what mistakes the prosecution made during the maintenance of the public prosecution."

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