The Corruption Investigation Office Demands Prosecution in the 'Jo Hee-yeon Case'... 'First Investigation' Concludes After 4 Months (Comprehensive Report 2)

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporters Baek Kyunghwan, Cho Seongpil, Kim Hyungmin] The High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Agency (HCIA) has requested the prosecution to indict Cho Hee-yeon, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education Superintendent, who is involved in the controversy over the 'special recruitment of dismissed teachers.' This is the conclusion of the investigation made four months after the HCIA launched its first case. Superintendent Cho's side immediately protested, stating, "The special recruitment was conducted legally," and "The decision to request prosecution was made solely based on prejudice and speculation." Superintendent Cho's side plans to request the convening of the Prosecutorial Investigation Deliberation Committee in the future.

On the 3rd, the HCIA announced that it requested the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office to prosecute Superintendent Cho and his chief secretary Mr. A on charges including abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights in connection with the investigation into the special recruitment of dismissed teachers.

Superintendent Cho is accused of being involved in the improper special recruitment of five dismissed teachers in 2018 (charges of abuse of authority and violation of the State Public Officials Act). There are also suspicions that the public officials in charge of recruitment were excluded from their duties during this process.

According to the HCIA's prosecution request, the core of the case is that Superintendent Cho instructed the special recruitment of five teachers affiliated with the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union (JeonGyoJo), who were dismissed following a guilty verdict by the Supreme Court and were naturally retired. The Board of Audit and Inspection, which conducted an audit on the allegations, concluded that Superintendent Cho excluded the vice superintendent, who refused to follow his instructions regarding the special recruitment, from his duties and assigned the special recruitment tasks to his chief secretary Mr. A. It is also suspected that Superintendent Cho had Mr. A unfairly select the screening committee members and exposed the five special recruitment candidates to the committee members to ensure they received high scores.

The HCIA's final decision to prosecute is based on laws related to the appointment of educational public officials. The law states that "no one shall intentionally interfere with or unduly influence the examination or appointment of national public officials." The HCIA viewed that during the review process of the special recruitment, prompted by demands from teacher organizations and opinions from Seoul city council members, Superintendent Cho abused his authority and exercised undue influence.

The HCIA did not accept all of Superintendent Cho's claims. Superintendent Cho argued that ▲ the special recruitment was reviewed based on opinions from teacher organizations and others, and it was not conducted by pre-selecting the five individuals but based on fair evaluations by external screening committee members ▲ and that he approved the recruitment alone to avoid burdening the officials in charge, as they had previously been investigated in past special recruitment cases.

Superintendent Cho also submitted a statement of non-establishment of charges, denying that he instructed the nomination and recruitment of special recruits or forced the vice superintendent to hold a personnel committee related to the special recruitment. He detailed that he never influenced the appointment of screening committee members or pressured them to give high scores to specific individuals, nor did he exclude employees such as department heads who opposed the special recruitment from their duties, thus denying the establishment of guilt.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Legal circles believe that the HCIA's decision to prosecute was not difficult. This is because there was sufficient basic material such as audit data from the Board of Audit and Inspection, which initially reported the case to the prosecution, and because investigative efforts were concentrated for about four months. The prosecution review committee, composed of legal experts, also legitimized the decision by voting in favor of prosecution.

However, there was some controversy. Superintendent Cho's side claimed invalidity and requested a re-review, arguing that defense counsel participation was not guaranteed in the prosecution review committee, but the HCIA did not accept this.

Accordingly, Superintendent Cho's side plans to submit additional statements to the prosecution, which has the final authority to indict, and take further measures. Immediately after the HCIA's announcement, Superintendent Cho's side stated, "The prosecution will thoroughly review the investigation records and related evidence to correct the HCIA's erroneous judgment," and "Since the right to participate and the right to testify were blocked in the HCIA's prosecution review committee, we plan to request the convening of the prosecution investigation deliberation committee."

They also refuted the HCIA's investigation results point by point. Regarding the obstruction charge that Superintendent Cho conspired with the secretariat to interfere with the rights of public officials in charge of the special recruitment, they emphasized, "The HCIA failed to identify who the victim was, what rights of the officials were obstructed, or present evidence to acknowledge this."

In the future, the prosecution will make the final decision on whether to indict Superintendent Cho after receiving the investigation materials from the HCIA. According to the HCIA Act, the HCIA can only investigate Superintendent Cho's case but does not have the authority to prosecute. The HCIA's authority to both investigate and prosecute 'high-ranking official crimes' is limited to cases involving judges, prosecutors, and police officers of superintendent general rank or higher.

As the HCIA concludes Superintendent Cho's case, attention inside and outside the legal community now shifts to the next cases, leaving this controversy behind. According to the legal community, the HCIA is currently investigating nine cases, including ▲ the Lee Gyu-won case, centered on allegations of falsifying a meeting report with construction businessman Yoon Joong-chun ▲ the leak of the indictment by Lee Sung-yoon, Seoul High Prosecutor's Office chief ▲ and the bribery case involving 'sponsor prosecutor' Kim Hyung-jun.

The cases expected to be particularly targeted by the HCIA include allegations of illegal pressure to prohibit the departure of former Deputy Minister of Justice Kim Hak-ui and cases related to opposition presidential candidate and former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl. The cases related to Yoon include allegations of a negligent investigation into the Optimus fund fraud case and obstruction of investigation into former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook's perjury coaching. These cases are all known to have been in the preparatory stage, such as reviewing materials until now. The legal community cautiously predicts that with the conclusion of Superintendent Cho's case, the HCIA will make progress on these previously stagnant cases.

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