[Q&A] Corruption Investigation Office: "We believe the prosecution will reach the same conclusion regarding Cho Hee-yeon indictment request"

Kim Seong-mun, Head of Investigation Division 2 at the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Agency (Gong-su-cheo), is announcing the investigation results on the special recruitment allegations of dismissed teachers involving Cho Hee-yeon, Superintendent of Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, at the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Agency on the morning of the 3rd.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Unit (HCIC) has determined that the allegations against Cho Hee-yeon, Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education Superintendent, regarding special recruitment constitute abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights, as well as violations of the National Public Service Act. On the 3rd, the HCIC forwarded the case to the prosecution and requested indictment. It was judged that Superintendent Cho abused his authority and exerted undue influence during the process of reviewing special recruitment, prompted by demands from teacher organizations and opinion letters from Seoul city council members. Current laws related to the appointment of educational public officials stipulate that “no one shall intentionally interfere with or unduly influence the examination or appointment of national public officials.”

The following is a Q&A with the HCIC prosecutors in charge of the case.

- Superintendent Cho’s side claims that (his absence from the special recruitment process) was a “voluntary choice” by the education office officials. What specific grounds led you to conclude that there was obstruction of the exercise of rights?

▲ The HCIC does not directly file indictments but notifies the prosecution, which makes the final decision on whether to indict. In other words, the HCIC has requested prosecution, but the indictment procedure has not yet occurred. Due to the privacy of the parties involved and the presumption of innocence, it is difficult to explain the investigation evidence and grounds for judgment.

- Regarding the indictment procedure, does forwarding the case to the prosecution mean only handing over materials? Is the assignment process handled independently by the prosecution? How was the consultation process with the prosecution?

▲ According to the HCIC Act, the HCIC does not have the right to prosecute. In this case, the prosecutor forwarded all related documents and evidence to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office. Apart from the prosecutor promptly informing the HCIC prosecutor of the indictment decision, there are no regulations on cooperation or division of authority. Basically, indictment is the prosecution’s responsibility, so the HCIC does not participate in the trial process, but mutual consultation and cooperation on how to proceed or on case issues will likely be necessary.

- Among Superintendent Cho’s charges, there is a part stating that he obstructed the exercise of rights by having staff receive instructions from Mr. A regarding the special recruitment work. Does the abuse of authority charge apply only to the instructions given by Mr. A, or also to the subsequent recruitment process?

▲ Under our criminal law, “abuse of authority” is defined as when a public official, who formally has certain authority, actually abuses that authority to make others perform duties they are not obliged to or obstruct the exercise of rights. It is not established solely by the fact that a public official abused authority. There must be a result such as making others perform duties not required by law or specific obstruction of rights. Especially, according to the Supreme Court’s plenary session in January last year, the requirements for obstruction of rights by abuse of authority are judged very strictly, resulting in many acquittals. The HCIC has confirmed the facts as much as possible through witness statements and searches.

- How will you respond if the prosecution decides not to indict or requests supplementary investigation?

▲ Basically, we expect the prosecution to respect our decision. Considering the investigation records and evidence, we believe the prosecution will reach the same conclusion as the HCIC. While we acknowledge the need for cooperation in cases where investigation and prosecution are separated, like this case, we have no intention to comply with requests for supplementary investigation similar to those between judicial police and prosecutors.

- Does this mean that Mr. A was only charged with violating the National Public Service Act and excluded from the abuse of authority investigation?

▲ Ultimately, only the abuse of authority charge was applied, and the violation of the National Public Service Act was not. Legally, the HCIC’s investigative scope is limited to high-ranking officials. It can only investigate specific crimes such as abuse of authority or dereliction of duty, not all crimes. Violations of the National Public Service Act are not included among these high-ranking official crimes. However, it is legally recognized as a related crime that can be investigated. Therefore, Superintendent Cho was charged based on the same facts. Although the superintendent is involved, those considered accomplices who are not high-ranking officials are excluded from investigation.

- This seems like a legal gap. Is there a possibility that the prosecution will apply additional charges?

▲ We think the prosecution will likely apply additional charges after reviewing the case records.

- Did you also send your opinion on that matter?

▲ Since the investigation results are sufficiently reflected in the case records, we believe the prosecutor can make an adequate judgment.

- In past rulings on the cultural blacklist, guilt was recognized when laws were violated by making others perform duties they were not obliged to. In this case, did you find that the staff violated recruitment procedures? Was the convening of the personnel committee a basis for judgment?

▲ We judged by considering three factors: abuse of authority, duties not required, and obstruction of rights. We concluded that the convening of the personnel committee did not fall under these.

- There was resistance from the defense during the prosecution review process. Compared to the prosecution’s review committee, there are shortcomings such as attendance rights, rights to state opinions, and rights to request convening. Is there room for improvement?

▲ The prosecution’s review committee and the HCIC’s public interest review committee differ in composition and function. The prosecution’s committee includes ordinary citizens and involves persuasion by both sides. The HCIC’s committee is merely an advisory body composed of lawyers, law professors, and legal experts. It was designed so that legal experts can reasonably judge the case progress and evidence without the suspect’s participation. Although Superintendent Cho’s side believes the suspect should have participation rights in this advisory committee, legally this is not the case, and the defense’s opinion letters were fully delivered during the review. There are no plans for improvements or additional guarantees in this regard.

- Do you consider Mr. A’s involvement in the recruitment process following Superintendent Cho’s instructions as abuse of authority?

▲ We found a conspiratorial relationship between the suspects. Under criminal law, accomplices may have conspired before the crime or divided various acts during execution. There are various accomplice relationships. If multiple people functionally share roles to commit a specific crime, they are considered accomplices. We judged that there was a functional role division between the two.

- Regarding the ruling party’s intention to file a complaint about the “allegation related to former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol,” what is the HCIC’s position?

▲ We think it is inappropriate to answer that question. The existing HCIC investigation into former Prosecutor General Yoon is not halted but ongoing.

- Some say that if a complaint is filed about recent cases, there is little time to review it following the prescribed procedures.

▲ Basically, as an investigative agency, the HCIC will not conduct investigations with political motives. Investigations will proceed according to established principles.

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