Jonamgwan, Refuting Joint Inspection Results: "Im Eunjeong Was Not the Lead Prosecutor in Han Myeongsuk's Civil Complaint Case"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] After the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office conducted a joint inspection and on the 14th released results stating that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office leadership violated procedural justice during the handling of the alleged obstruction of justice coaching case involving former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook's investigation team, Cho Nam-gwan, then Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, issued a rebuttal statement.

On the 15th, Cho Nam-gwan, Director of the Judicial Research and Training Institute, posted on the internal prosecution communication network, "Considering the importance of this case and the public interest, we made our best efforts to uphold fairness and procedural justice and handled it solely based on legal principles and evidence."

Cho stated, "This complaint case was received by the Inspection Division 3 of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, and naturally, the head of Inspection Division 3 served as the chief prosecutor in charge and handled it," adding, "For another prosecutor to handle it, the Prosecutor General must have instructed a reassignment, but the former Prosecutor General did not give such instructions to Im Eun-jeong, then Inspection Policy Research Officer."

He continued, "Since the Inspection Policy Research Officer position was non-statutory, unlike other research officers affiliated with the Inspection Department, Im was not part of Inspection Divisions 1, 2, or 3," and "Although Im was involved in the investigation work of this case under the direction of the Inspection Department head, this was only to assist the chief prosecutor of Inspection Division 3, like other research officers belonging to that division," he elaborated.

Cho explained, "Nevertheless, Im claimed to be the chief prosecutor of this case and submitted electronic approval to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office leadership," and "Since the head of Inspection Division 3 had already reported on this case several times as the chief prosecutor, the leadership clearly designated the head of Inspection Division 3 as the chief prosecutor to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings or confusion related to the chief prosecutor."

He also rebutted criticisms that the committee composed of research officers lost fairness. "The formation of the committee with research officers was an unavoidable measure because the head of the Inspection Department refused to refer the case to the expert investigation advisory group and the statute of limitations was imminent," and "To dispel any possible fairness disputes, research officers who had connections with the accused prosecutors were all excluded," he claimed. He further explained, "Since Im Eun-jeong refused to participate in the committee, we had no choice but to discuss for a long time with the remaining members and reached a unanimous opinion of no charges."

Furthermore, Cho emphasized, "My belief remains unchanged that procedural justice is upheld only when following legal principles and evidence, and it is not realized based on one side's claims or beliefs."

Meanwhile, Park Beom-gye, Minister of Justice, announced the joint inspection results the previous day, stating that during the handling of the complaint case against former Prime Minister Han's investigation team, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office leadership suddenly replaced the case prosecutor from Im Eun-jeong to the head of Inspection Division 3, raising suspicions of 'protecting their own.' He also announced that the leadership formed a committee composed of research officers unilaterally selected by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Planning and Coordination Department, which produced a no-charge decision against the investigation team, thereby violating procedural justice.

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