The Trial of Lee Seong-yoon Begins in the 'Kim Hak-ui Case'... 'Indictment Leak' Remains Stalled

Prosecutor General Absent at Trial Preparation on 23rd... Lee Seong-yoon's Side Says "No Investigation Interference"

Newly appointed Seoul High Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon is arriving at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the 11th. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporters Baek Kyunghwan and Kim Daehyun] The first trial of Lee Seong-yoon, Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, who was indicted on charges of exerting external pressure in the investigation of former Vice Minister of Justice Kim Hak-ui's illegal travel ban case, has begun. The trials of other defendants involved in this case have been consolidated, anticipating intense courtroom battles ahead. However, the 'indictment leak case' related to this matter has shown no progress, and controversy is expected to continue for the time being.

The Criminal Division 27 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Seon-il) held the first preparatory hearing for Lee, indicted on charges of abuse of authority, at 10:30 a.m. on the 23rd. The preparatory hearing is a procedure where the court listens to the prosecution and defense's opinions on the charges and trial process and discusses the plan for evidence presentation. Since the defendant is not required to attend, Lee did not appear in court.

Lee was indicted on charges of exerting pressure to stop the investigation after the Anyang branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office detected signs of illegal travel by former Vice Minister Kim in 2019, claiming that the travel ban was lawfully executed. The prosecution believes Lee made phone calls to the leadership of the Anyang branch to exert external pressure and distort the investigation results.

However, Lee has denied the charges, repeatedly refusing summons from the investigation team and requesting the case be transferred to the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). After indictment, he stated, "Through the investigation process, I explained in detail the situation of the Anti-Corruption and Strong Measures Department and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office at the time, but it is very regrettable that it ultimately led to indictment," and asserted, "There was absolutely no illegal act such as exerting pressure on the investigation at that time."

Among the defendants involved in this case, excluding Lee, the trials of former Blue House Civil Affairs Secretary Lee Kwang-cheol, Legal Researcher Cha Gyu-geun of the Judicial Research and Training Institute, and Deputy Chief Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office have been consolidated and started first under the same court as Lee.

However, there has been no progress in the case of the indictment leak involving Lee. Some parts of Lee's indictment related to the former Vice Minister Kim's case were reported by the media before the parties involved even received them, causing controversy.

Following the order of Justice Minister Park Beom-gye, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office launched a fact-finding investigation, and with 10 to 20 prosecutors identified as having accessed the document through the internal prosecution network 'e-PROS,' it was expected to be resolved quickly. However, the prosecution's investigation is still ongoing.

The CIO, which took over the investigation of Lee's indictment leak case as a direct investigation, is also only spending time. The CIO began investigating after accepting a complaint from the Judicial Justice Restoration Civic Action, which alleged that a current prosecutor intentionally leaked the indictment to a specific media outlet and should be punished for breach of official secrets, but has yet to reach a conclusion nearly three months later.

In the legal community, it is interpreted that the CIO is trying to avoid controversy such as overlapping investigations by reflecting the prosecution's own investigation results. However, there is also speculation that the CIO might choose to conduct a forced investigation of the prosecution's internal network and inspection department. This is because even if the prosecution has identified the leaker, there could be variables such as covering up the case or destroying evidence. Currently, the CIO has only completed the complainant's investigation.

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