The Corruption Investigation Office Wraps Up Jo Hee-yeon Case... Hands Over to Prosecution

[Asia Economy Reporter Bae Kyunghwan] The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) will convey its opinion to the prosecution that Cho Hee-yeon, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education Superintendent, should be indicted. Internal opinions have been organized confirming that there are no legal issues with the prosecution review committee procedures pointed out by Superintendent Cho's side.

According to the legal community on the 2nd, the CIO, which has settled on indicting Superintendent Cho, will soon officially announce the final conclusion on this case.

Previously, the CIO filed this as the "No. 1 case" based on the Board of Audit and Inspection's audit report alleging that Superintendent Cho exerted undue influence in the special hiring process of five dismissed teachers.

After about four months of investigation, the CIO is known to have concluded that it will request the prosecution to indict Superintendent Cho and Han Mo, who was the secretary-general at the time, as accomplices for abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights. The CIO conducted a search and seizure at the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education in May, followed by witness investigations, and publicly summoned Superintendent Cho at the end of July. Han, who was in charge of the practical work related to the special hiring allegations, was also additionally booked.

Although Superintendent Cho's side pointed out procedural issues with the prosecution review committee held on the 30th, the CIO internally concluded that there were no problems. Earlier, Superintendent Cho's side strongly opposed, claiming that the suspect's opinions were excluded during the convening and proceedings of the prosecution review committee, and submitted a statement requesting the committee, which guarantees the suspect's right to testify, to be reopened.

However, within the CIO, it was judged that there was no problem since Superintendent Cho's side's opinions were fully reflected in the prosecution review committee, which is an advisory body convened as needed by the CIO. It is also known that the committee members who attended at the time expressed opinions indicating "no procedural issues."

If the CIO requests prosecution in the future, the final decision will be made by the prosecution. According to the CIO Act, the CIO can only investigate Superintendent Cho's case and does not have the authority to prosecute. The "high-ranking official crimes" cases that the CIO can both investigate and prosecute involve judges, prosecutors, and police officers of superintendent rank or higher.

In the legal community, there is speculation that the prosecution, which had opposed the CIO over prosecution authority, may request supplementary investigation on this case. Superintendent Cho's side is also expecting this and plans to submit their opinions on the CIO prosecution review committee's legal procedures to the prosecution as well.

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