Legal Community Voices "Prosecution Must Secure Yuhan-gi's Cell Phone, Key Figure in Daejang-dong Case"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] Attention is focused on what investigative steps the prosecution will take this week following the extreme choice made by Yoo Han-gi, former head of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, who was identified as a key figure in revealing preferential treatment and lobbying allegations related to the Daejang-dong development. In the legal community, there are calls to secure Yoo’s suicide note and mobile phone.

On the 13th, a prosecution official told Asia Economy in a phone interview regarding the possibility of seizing Yoo’s mobile phone, "Since the police are currently leading the investigation into the death case, it is difficult for the prosecution to respond."

The police are conducting a detailed investigation to determine the cause of death of Yoo, who died on the 10th. The prosecution is understood to plan to take necessary measures once this investigation is completed and the results are confirmed.

However, the consensus in the legal community differs. They emphasize that there is no time to wait leisurely for the police investigation and demand swift action from the prosecution. They argue that the prosecution should first request the voluntary submission of Yoo’s suicide note and mobile phone, which have been kept confidential at the family’s request, and if that fails, secure them through compulsory measures such as seizure. Considering Yoo’s involvement in both the upper echelons and lobbying processes of the Daejang-dong allegations, his mobile phone could potentially be the ‘smoking gun’ that clarifies the suspicions. A legal community official stressed, "At the very least, the prosecution should obtain Yoo’s mobile phone and conduct a digital forensic examination."

There is also an argument that the prosecution should hurry because the police, who must determine the cause of Yoo’s death, might first secure and analyze the mobile phone. If the police conduct digital forensics first, the investigation team will have to decide whether to accept the analyzed data from the police or take the mobile device and perform their own digital forensics. If they accept the police’s analyzed data as is, some crucial information the prosecution needs might be missing since they did not conduct the analysis themselves. If they redo the digital forensics, the investigation will be delayed accordingly. In this case, given the prosecution’s organizational nature of leading investigations in all cases, there could be significant internal criticism.

A renewed standoff over the mobile phone could also occur. In December 2019, the prosecution and police clashed over possession of the mobile phone of a prosecution investigator from the Blue House’s Civil Affairs Office who died during an investigation into the Blue House’s interference in the Ulsan mayoral election and a directed investigation.

The political sphere is also expected to closely watch the prosecution’s investigation this week. The death of Yoo has reignited calls for a special prosecutor. Criticism has emerged that Yoo’s death is a tragedy born from a prosecution investigation that only shook the lower ranks. It is argued that the prosecution failed to properly target the upper echelons, instead placing extreme pressure on Yoo, who was below them, leading to his death. Although not publicly disclosed, according to the legal community, Yoo reportedly stated in his suicide note that he found it difficult to endure the prosecution’s investigation.

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