Proceedings Followed the Corruption Investigation Office Guidelines... Superintendent Jo Hee-yeon Requests to Reopen the Prosecution Review Committee

On the 27th of last month, Cho Hee-yeon, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education Superintendent, who is suspected of unfair special recruitment of dismissed teachers, is appearing at the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Department in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi Province. / Gwacheon - Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The office of Seoul Education Superintendent Cho Hee-yeon, who is accused of abusing authority during the special hiring process for dismissed teachers, has claimed that the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (HOCI) Public Prosecution Deliberation Committee's (PPDC) 'prosecution opinion' resolution is invalid and has requested the PPDC to reconvene.

However, since there were no significant procedural errors according to HOCI's PPDC guidelines and some of Superintendent Cho's side's claims have been found to be inaccurate, the likelihood of the PPDC being reconvened appears low.

Attorney Lee Jae-hwa, representing Superintendent Cho, held a press conference on the morning of the 31st at the Government Gwacheon Complex Civil Service Building while submitting a request for the PPDC to reconvene, stating, "The PPDC resolution made yesterday to request prosecution against Superintendent Cho on charges of abuse of authority is invalid because it infringed on the rights of the suspect and defense counsel to present their opinions."

He also emphasized, "Chief Prosecutor Kim Seong-moon's attendance from the start of the PPDC meeting and his approximately two-hour explanation of the case to the committee members violated procedural guidelines."

Attorney Lee's side had previously claimed that "Chief Prosecutor Kim attended the entire PPDC session," but this was found to be inaccurate, and they appear to have corrected their stance.

Superintendent Cho also stated the previous day, "It is difficult to accept the PPDC's decision, which did not guarantee the suspect's defense counsel's right to present opinions and only listened to the prosecutor's unilateral views," adding, "the PPDC should be reconvened with both defense counsel and prosecutor equally guaranteed the right to present opinions."

Superintendent Cho's side argues that their right to present opinions was violated by comparing the PPDC with the Prosecutorial Investigation Deliberation Committee (PIDC), where the suspect's side is guaranteed the right to present opinions. However, there are several differences between the PPDC and PIDC according to HOCI guidelines.

Specifically, while the PIDC allows involved parties to request a meeting, only the HOCI chief can request the PPDC to convene. The biggest difference is that in the PIDC, the chief prosecutor and involved parties can submit separate opinion documents of up to 30 A4 pages and appear in person to present their opinions, whereas the PPDC only has a procedure allowing the committee to summon the investigating prosecutor to hear their opinions.

Regarding this, a HOCI official explained, "The PIDC is composed of general citizens, so it is effective for both sides to attend and explain to persuade the members, similar to a jury system. However, the PPDC is composed entirely of legal experts and reviews legal issues such as whether the investigation meets basic requirements, whether evidence or testimony has been secured on legal points, and whether there is sufficient value for prosecution."

Regarding the submission of opinion documents, the official added, "Superintendent Cho's side requested to wait for about two weeks after the summons for submitting opinion documents and submitted several opinion documents afterward. Altogether, these exceed 100 pages, and the original documents were all submitted to the committee members."

He further stated, "The claim that Chief Prosecutor Kim attended the entire PPDC meeting is also not true. He left immediately after the morning briefing and the Q&A session."

However, the official said, "If the request for reconvening the PPDC is received, it will be reviewed."

Superintendent Cho is accused of instructing the secretary-general to allow the special hiring of five dismissed teachers, including four from the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union (KTU), in 2018, improperly interfering in the selection of screening committee members, and excluding the then deputy superintendent who opposed this from duties (charges of abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights, and violation of the National Public Service Act).

Previously, the Board of Audit and Inspection confirmed these misconduct facts and reported them to the police for violation of the National Public Service Act, providing related misconduct as reference materials for HOCI's investigation.

Following HOCI's request, the police transferred the case to HOCI, which on April 23 conducted a search and seizure at the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education and summoned related persons for investigation under case number '2021 Gongje 1'.

At the PPDC meeting held the previous day, seven of the eleven members, including nine lawyers and two legal scholars, attended and resolved to recommend prosecution against Superintendent Cho and former Secretary-General Han.

Since HOCI does not have the authority to prosecute the superintendent, under Article 26 of the HOCI Act, it forwards related documents and evidence to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, the competent prosecution office, and if prosecution is requested, the prosecution office makes the final decision on whether to prosecute.

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