The Corruption Investigation Office Refutes False Allegations About Search Warrants: "If They Were False, Would the Court Have Issued Them?"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Unit (HCIC) has refuted claims and controversies that false information was included during the process of obtaining a search warrant related to the case of Seoul High Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon’s indictment leak.

On the 29th, the HCIC issued a statement saying, "If there were false contents, the court, after reviewing all investigation records and the warrant application, would have dismissed the search warrant, not issued it."

The HCIC, which is investigating the indictment leak case involving Prosecutor Lee, faced controversy over allegedly including false information such as the affiliation of the subjects when obtaining a warrant to search the Supreme Prosecutors' Office. This controversy arose from claims made by those targeted in the search.

At the time of the indictment leak, Prosecutor Im Se-jin, head of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office trial division, and Prosecutor Kim Kyung-mok of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office, who were part of the investigation team, had returned to their original offices two months before Lee’s indictment. However, the warrant stated that they remained on the investigation team in a dispatched capacity, which was claimed to be false. These prosecutors are reportedly planning to sue the HCIC for falsifying official documents.

The HCIC explained, "The investigation report submitted as part of the investigation records, which justified the need for the search, included details about changes in the investigation team due to the Ministry of Justice’s refusal to extend the dispatch and acting duties of prosecutors." They added, "We consistently used terms like ‘former and current investigation team’ and defined ‘indictment investigation team’ in a footnote as the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office investigation team that investigated and indicted Prosecutor Lee."

They continued, "The warrant application included a list summarizing the search targets based on the investigation report, which concisely outlined each target’s relevance to the case." They emphasized, "When reviewing the investigation records together, the phrase ‘at the time of indictment, original affiliation Suwon District Prosecutors' Office OO branch chief, investigation line, dispatched’ is accurately understood to mean ‘at the time of indictment, the original affiliation was OO branch, part of the investigation line, and in a dispatched capacity.’ It was originally written to indicate dispatched work, and there is no problem interpreting it as such in the context of the application."

Meanwhile, the HCIC’s Investigation Division 3 (Chief Prosecutor Choi Seok-gyu) began executing the search warrant on the Supreme Prosecutors' Office’s information and communications server at around 9:30 a.m. today by dispatching prosecutors and investigators.

Previously, on the 26th, the HCIC conducted a 7-hour and 40-minute search. However, the initial 5 hours were delayed due to consultations with Supreme Prosecutors' Office officials and observers, preventing the completion of the warrant execution, which was continued today.

The indictment leak suspicion arose when the indictment of Prosecutor Lee, who was indicted on charges of exerting external pressure in the illegal travel ban investigation of Kim Hak-ui, was reported by the media before the subject even received it. The HCIC formally registered the case in May on charges of official secret leakage and began the investigation.

The HCIC stressed, "The essence of this investigation is that litigation documents, which are confidential until the trial revision, were leaked to the media." They added, "The purpose of the investigation is to identify the leaker and determine the legality of the act, which is why the search warrant was requested."

They further stated, "Today’s search of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office was not a second warrant request and issuance but a resumption of execution after suspending the initial warrant execution." The HCIC concluded, "Under the HCIC Act, the HCIC has investigative and prosecutorial authority over judges, prosecutors, and police officers of rank superintendent or higher. Therefore, the HCIC will make every effort to strictly comply with legal procedures, especially in cases involving legal and investigative experts."

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