Two Prosecutors from Han Myeong-sook Investigation Team Accused of 'Perjury Instruction' Cleared and Not Prosecuted

Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye is announcing the results of the joint inspection by the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office at the Gyeonggi Government Gwacheon Complex on the 14th. / Gwacheon - Photo by Kang Jin-hyeong aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist Reporter] Two prosecutors belonging to the investigation team of former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook's political funds law violation case, who had been under inspection for charges including 'suborning perjury,' were each cleared of charges and received non-disciplinary dispositions.

According to the legal community on the 15th, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Committee resolved not to request disciplinary action against the two prosecutors of the former Prime Minister Han's investigation team, who had been under inspection for charges including suborning perjury, by deciding on non-disciplinary and no-charge dispositions respectively.

A no-charge disposition is issued when there is no reason for disciplinary action, and a non-disciplinary disposition is given when there is a reason for discipline but it is deemed appropriate not to impose disciplinary measures.

On the morning of the same day, when asked about this decision by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye said, "I agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Committee regarding the Han Myeong-sook investigation team," and added, "Appropriate measures have been taken by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office against the investigation team."

The Ministry of Justice held a briefing on the results of the joint inspection by the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on the former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook case the day before, announcing the results of a four-month inspection focusing on the handling process of complaints related to the former Prime Minister Han.

Minister Park, who appeared as the presenter at the briefing, stated, "During the review of the former Prime Minister Han's case, inappropriate investigative practices were confirmed, such as repeated summons of detainees, improper conveniences provided to cooperating witnesses, and omission of some investigative documents."

He added, "According to the investigation records of the former Prime Minister Han's case, it was confirmed that witnesses scheduled to appear in court were summoned by the prosecution more than 100 times in total and were pre-interviewed about their testimonies."

He also revealed that during this process, some witnesses were interrogated late into the early morning, and inappropriate conveniences were provided to detainee witnesses, such as allowing free visits and calls with outsiders and arranging for their incarcerated family members to be held at the well-equipped Seoul Detention Center.

Minister Park pointed out, "Such repeated summons and interrogations can be seen as improper rehearsal of testimony, which increases the likelihood of witnesses' memories being contaminated or distorted."

However, at the beginning of the briefing, Minister Park stated, "I hope that today's announcement of the joint inspection results will serve as an opportunity for our prosecution to break away from the past and move toward a completely new future prosecution," emphasizing that this joint inspection was not intended to punish or discipline anyone.

Furthermore, during the Q&A session with reporters immediately after the briefing, when asked whether the suborning perjury charges against detainees by the investigation team in the former Prime Minister Han's case were confirmed, he replied, "Regarding the substantive charges of suborning perjury or coaching, although there are procedural shortcomings, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office has already reached a conclusion," and added, "I issued investigative instructions, and based on that, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office held a chief meeting and reached a conclusion, so this joint inspection did not make a judgment on the substantive existence of suborning perjury or coaching."

Meanwhile, some have raised suspicions that despite Minister Park's declaration, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office attempted to discipline the involved prosecutors by holding the Inspection Committee several times. There are also criticisms that holding the Inspection Committee itself was an excessive attempt, given that the three-year statute of limitations for disciplinary action had already passed.

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