Park Cheol-wan, Head of Andong Branch Office, "Immediate Personnel Action and Investigation Must Be Initiated for Prosecutor Im Eun-jeong"

Screenshot of Lim Eun-jeong, Research Officer of Inspection Policy at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, on Facebook.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] As Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye urged Lim Eun-jeong, the Inspection Policy Research Officer at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office (Judicial Research and Training Institute Class 30), to refrain from social network service (SNS) activities, there have been calls within the prosecution to immediately exclude Lim from inspection duties and initiate an investigation against her for leaking official secrets related to inspections via Facebook.

Following Minister Park's directive, a joint inspection by the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office was launched into the overall allegations of false testimony obstruction in the trial of former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook and the process by which the results of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office chiefs' meeting related to this were leaked to the media. However, there are concerns both inside and outside the prosecution that it is inappropriate for Lim, who has been reported and is under investigation for leaking official secrets, to continue performing inspection duties.

Personnel Action for Minister Park Beom-gye, Inspection Initiation for Acting Prosecutor General Cho Nam-gwan... Immediate Action Recommended

According to the legal community on the 25th, Park Cheol-wan, head of the Andong Branch Office (Class 27), posted a message titled "Recommendation for Personnel Action and Disciplinary Proceedings against Research Officer Lim Eun-jeong" on the prosecution's internal network E-Pros yesterday, urging that Lim be immediately excluded from inspection duties.

Regarding the "summary of the recommendation," Chief Park stated, "Based on Lim's past conduct and speech, especially her attitude of not seeming to recognize the illegality of publicly disclosing inspection-related matters she is handling via SNS, I judge that Lim lacks the will, ability, and attitude to perform the duties of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Policy Research Officer, a key position related to inspecting prosecution members."

He continued, "Therefore, as a member of the prosecution, I recommend to Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye to exercise personnel authority to 'immediately exclude Lim from inspection duties' and to Acting Prosecutor General Cho Nam-gwan to initiate an immediate inspection."

To explain the background of this recommendation, Chief Park presented a hypothetical case applied to the Andong Branch Office, similar to the content of Lim's Facebook posts.

He said, "As the branch chief, suspecting impartiality in a case investigated by a prosecutor at the Andong Branch Office, I reassigned it to another prosecutor and ordered the holding of an investigative prosecution review committee involving all prosecutors including myself before drawing conclusions. However, the original prosecutor posted on SNS that 'The branch chief is blatantly monitoring me. If I handle the case truthfully, the branch chief will pour hatred and curses on me. There is no way the committee will be fairly formed or conducted. I did not attend the committee because I could not expect fairness in its formation and conduct. I was mobilized as a mere formality and have no reason to be framed for objection. I was never disappointed because I never expected fairness from the branch chief.'"

Chief Park emphasized, "If I, as the institution head, were aware of such SNS activity by a regular prosecutor and turned a blind eye without taking any action, the Andong Branch Office would become a subject of ridicule rather than trust from the public and would fail to fulfill its role as a prosecution office. My social honor as a prosecutor would not be restored either."

He added, "If such an incident actually occurs, I would immediately report the act of posting the above message as prosecutor misconduct and recommend the Minister of Justice to issue an order to exclude the person from duty, fulfilling my duty to uphold the rule of law and maintain prosecution functions as the institution head."

Chief Park posted the full texts of four Facebook posts by Lim on March 3, 4, 9, and 23 related to the inspection of the false testimony obstruction case involving former Prime Minister Han, highlighting specific content that could legally be problematic, such as leaking official secrets, by marking them in bold font.

He stressed, "'Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done,' as the British legal maxim states, meaning that justice must be substantively realized and also inspire trust that it is being conducted fairly."

He added, "My judgment is that Lim's SNS activities seriously violated all four basic duties borne by inspection prosecutors: confidentiality, prohibition of disclosure, fairness, and maintenance of dignity."

At the end of his post, Chief Park pointed out, "From the SNS posts, Lim assumed an unreasonable premise that her claims were correct and opposing views could not be right even before the final conclusion was reached through normal decision-making procedures such as approvals. In the March 23 post, she expressed that she could not expect fairness from her superiors, the Prosecutor General and Acting Prosecutor General, who are the highest decision-makers in the prosecution, and before receiving the Inspection Policy Research Officer position, she wrote a column for Kyunghyang Newspaper that seemed biased on this matter."

He added, "Considering Lim's position and career, her conduct is likely to give some members of the public, who do not have the capacity to grasp the full picture, the impression that the former Prosecutor General and Acting Prosecutor General are unfair officials and perform their duties unfairly. Such acts seriously damage the personal honor of the Prosecutor General and Acting Prosecutor General."

Chief Park emphasized, "For the prosecution, a quasi-judicial institution tasked with upholding the rule of law and protecting society from crime, public trust in fairness is essential. Lim's conduct seriously damages not only public trust in the prosecution but also the trust of prosecution members in the Minister and prosecution leadership's will to enforce the law. I believe such conduct should no longer be tolerated."

Lim Eun-jeong vs. Park Cheol-wan, Ongoing Dispute via Facebook and E-Pros

On the 5th, Chief Park also posted on the prosecution's internal network a message titled "Regarding Lim Eun-jeong's March 4 Facebook Post," urging the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (HOCI) and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department to take necessary actions such as investigation and inspection against Lim for clearly violating the crime of leaking official secrets related to inspections disclosed on Facebook.

At that time, he claimed, "Lim's Facebook post constitutes a serious crime different in degree from her previous inappropriate conduct, and she should bear legal responsibility accordingly."

Chief Park also specifically cited Supreme Court precedents on the crime of leaking official secrets.

The precedents he cited include the 1996 Supreme Court ruling (95Do780) stating, "Article 127 of the Criminal Act on leaking official secrets protects not the secret itself but the interests threatened by the breach of a public official's duty of confidentiality, namely the state's functions threatened by the disclosure of secrets," and the 2007 Supreme Court ruling (2004Do5561) that information about the opinions of investigation leaders is an internal secret of investigative agencies that must not be disclosed externally before the final decision on the case is made.

Chief Park stated that Lim's March 4 Facebook post, in which she revealed her intention to criminally indict prisoner witnesses involved in the false testimony obstruction case while former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, Acting Prosecutor General Cho Nam-gwan, and Inspection Division 3 Chief held opinions not to indict, constituted a clear leak of official secrets obtained during her duties and thus is subject to criminal punishment.

He said, "Lim's conduct has fatally damaged the fairness and reliability of the prosecution's investigation into the false testimony obstruction case. I expect the relevant agencies (HOCI for criminal cases, Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department for inspection cases) to take necessary and appropriate measures."

Following Chief Park's criticism, Lim responded on her Facebook on the 9th, stating, "To guarantee the public's right to know, I informed the public of the minimal information about the replacement of the lead prosecutor. I responded to false reports and rumors to dispel misunderstandings and suspicions. Seeing those who talk about leaking official secrets, I wonder what kind of secrets these are and for whom they are kept."

In response, Chief Park posted again on the internal network the same day, questioning, "Lim claims she only informed the public of the minimal information about the lead prosecutor's replacement. Are the contents of the posts on the 3rd and 4th only minimal information about the lead prosecutor's replacement? I found much richer content in the two posts; am I the only one?" He urged, "Please do not distort the facts."

He further asked, "If the purpose is to respond to false reports for the public's right to know, does that mean that disclosing 'the opinions of the investigation subject before the final disposition,' which is an official secret, without the official spokesperson's office announcing it, does not constitute the crime of leaking official secrets?"

Chief Park also questioned, "If the spokesperson's office publicly discloses such official secrets, wouldn't that constitute a crime?" and demanded a detailed explanation from Lim on why the crime of leaking official secrets does not apply.

Regarding Lim's remark on Facebook expressing doubt about "what kind of secrets and for whom they are kept," Chief Park answered each question raised by Lim.

He said, "Since a colleague is curious, I will answer. The 'secrets' are for the fairness and reliability of investigative functions and for the public who would suffer if investigative functions are impaired."

He added, "I hope this opportunity encourages looking up the protected legal interests of the crime of leaking official secrets in textbooks."

Regarding "for whom the secrets are kept," Chief Park said, "When discussing the establishment or non-establishment of the crime of leaking official secrets, it is not easily understandable to consider for whom the official secrets are kept. I find it curious that Lim is curious about this."

Finally, on the "motivation for raising the issue," he said, "When a prosecutor commits an illegal act under the Criminal Act, holding them accountable restores trust in the rule of law both inside and outside the prosecution and avoids controversy over 'covering for one's own members.'"

Sympathetic Comments Follow Chief Park Cheol-wan's Post... "Different Issue from Disclosure of Supreme Prosecutors' Office Chiefs' Meeting Results"

Within the prosecution, most prosecutors sympathize with Chief Park's criticism. While it is true that Lim's posting of subjective opinions on specific cases via SNS was inappropriate, it could be tolerated as freedom of expression up to that point. However, disclosing on Facebook the opinions of investigation subjects on ongoing cases under inspection or investigation is a clear leak of official secrets.

Many comments agreeing with Chief Park's views were posted under his message.

Prosecutor A wrote, "Lim's conduct constitutes not only the criminal offense of leaking official secrets but also a violation of the 'Regulations on Prohibition of Disclosure of Criminal Cases,' and should be subject to inspection. Before prosecution, criminal cases' charges and investigation details must not be disclosed except in very exceptional cases through official spokespersons or, in the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the spokesperson. I hope the inspection department actively reviews this."

Among the comments, many also criticized Lim for thinking she alone is right.

Prosecutor B questioned, "You are talking about the Inspection Division 3 Chief who has a different opinion from the righteous Deputy Director Lim. Where does Deputy Director Lim get the confidence that only she is right?"

Comments agreeing with Chief Park's claim that the ongoing case is clearly subject to criminal punishment were also notable.

Prosecutor C wrote, "What would happen if a prosecutor or investigator at the front line told a person under investigation in advance, 'The lead prosecutor has a non-indictment opinion, but the deputy director has an indictment opinion'? They would be subject to inspection and criminal indictment. I recall struggling while watching a former staff member prosecuted for leaking official secrets by revealing investigation policies in the prosecutor's office."

At a recent Supreme Prosecutors' Office chiefs and high prosecutors' meeting held under Minister Park's investigation directive, the vote was 10 (non-prosecution): 2 (prosecution): 2 (abstention), deciding to maintain the prosecution's previous non-indictment conclusion against Kim, accused of false testimony obstruction in former Prime Minister Han's trial. Among the six most senior high prosecutors in the field and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office chiefs appointed by former Minister Chu Mi-ae, there were multiple dissenting votes.

However, Minister Park, upon receiving this result, appeared to accept the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's decision on the surface, as initially promised to accept non-prosecution opinions. Yet, by ordering a strong joint inspection covering the entire case process, including the investigation of former Prime Minister Han, handling of the false testimony obstruction complaint, and media leaks of the chiefs' meeting content, he effectively rejected the Supreme Prosecutors' Office chiefs' meeting result and supported Inspection Chief Han Dong-su and Research Officer Lim.

In particular, a Ministry of Justice official stated at a briefing on the joint inspection that there is no reason to exclude Lim, who has been criminally reported for leaking inspection and investigation content, from participating in the joint inspection.

Within the prosecution, there is criticism that the disclosure of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office chiefs' meeting results to the media and Lim's direct disclosure on Facebook of the investigation subject's opinions on the case should not be equated.

Prosecutor D said, "Although related guidelines stipulate that deliberation content and results should be kept confidential, this concerns internal decision-making processes within the prosecution organization. The regulation made during former Minister Cho Kuk's tenure allows exceptions to disclose non-prosecution cases."

He added, "Disclosing the final meeting results of a high-profile case to the media and leaking the investigation subject's opinions on the handling direction of an ongoing inspection or investigation case are not comparable."

The regulation Prosecutor D referred to is the Ministry of Justice Ordinance on 'Prohibition of Disclosure of Criminal Cases,' Article 10, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, which allows disclosure of information on non-prosecution cases if the case content has been widely publicized before the final disposition.

Yesterday, Minister Park commented on the controversy over Lim's SNS posts, stating, "Posting opinions on the prosecution's internal network by prosecutors falls within the scope of freedom of expression."

He added, "There is a difference in confidentiality between publicly informing specific media of official meeting processes, content, and results and a deputy director posting opinions."

Lim's posting on Facebook of the investigation subject's opinions on the case's handling direction is thus seen as contrary to the majority of prosecutors' view that it constitutes leaking official secrets and is subject to criminal punishment.

However, on the 22nd, Minister Park said that whether to exclude Lim from the joint inspection is a matter for the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department to decide, but regarding the media leak of the chiefs' meeting results, he stated, "If there is an issue, it might be appropriate for Lim not to conduct the inspection."

Yesterday, regarding the controversy over Lim's SNS activities, Minister Park urged restraint, saying, "She has to handle some duties in this inspection, so I hope she is a bit more cautious about revealing her intentions."

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