[Column] The Unclear Explanation from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Division

Seokjin Choi, Legal Affairs Reporter

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department, investigating allegations of the leak of the indictment by Seoul High Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon, has not calmed the so-called 'report omission' controversy over its failure to report to the Ministry of Justice under the direction of Inspection Chief Han Dong-su, despite discovering a draft indictment Word file on the PCs of prosecutors close to Lee.

The controversy began with the Chosun Ilbo report on the 9th titled "Leaked Lee Seong-yoon Indictment Found on PCs of Lee’s Close Associates... Han Dong-su Covered It Up." The report stated that the Inspection Department found the draft indictment file on the PCs of Prosecutor A, a key aide when Lee was the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, and Prosecutor B, who had worked with Lee, but did not escalate the matter to a formal inspection and did not report it to the Ministry of Justice under Chief Han’s orders.

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department, investigating this allegation under the direction of Justice Minister Park Beom-gye, has been suspecting the prosecutors from the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office investigation team who indicted Lee as the main suspects of the leak. However, when a similar draft file was found on the PCs of Lee’s close associates, it was not disclosed. If Chief Han, known for his pro-government stance, deliberately omitted reporting the misconduct of Lee’s close associates, who are also pro-government, it would be a serious issue.

Immediately after the report, the Inspection Department issued a statement denying the allegations as "completely unfounded." They stated that Chief Han did not instruct the removal of Prosecutors A and B from the interim report and that both were included among the investigation subjects reported to the Ministry of Justice.

The core of the allegation was whether the Inspection Department found the draft indictment file on Prosecutors A and B’s PCs but failed to report it to the Ministry of Justice in a timely manner. However, the explanation was a non sequitur, only stating that both were included among the 22 investigation subjects reported to the Ministry.

As reporters pressed for clarification, the Inspection Department added that there was no fact of finding the draft indictment file on Prosecutors A and B’s PCs. This was an oral explanation through the Supreme Prosecutors' Office spokesperson, differing from the official written statement previously released to the press.

Then, Chief Han filed a defamation lawsuit with the police against the reporters who reported the related allegations and demanded an apology and correction from the Chosun Ilbo, announcing this on his Facebook, which seemed to quell the controversy.

However, on the 10th, Justice Minister Park Beom-gye stated in response to reporters’ questions on his way to work, "I have received a report related to Prosecutor A’s Word file," reigniting the controversy. The Inspection Department had denied the discovery of the Word file, but the Ministry of Justice announced receiving a related report a day later, raising suspicions. Moreover, Minister Park defended Chief Han’s 'report omission' controversy, saying, "So far, it seems there is no major problem."

In the early hours of the same day, Chosun Ilbo reported in a follow-up that the Inspection Department reported to the Ministry of Justice on the morning of the 9th that "Forensics confirmed Prosecutor A was storing the draft indictment," and that the fact of Prosecutor A’s possession of the draft indictment was omitted in the June and July interim reports to the Ministry but was reported belatedly after media coverage. As of the 14th, neither Chief Han nor the Inspection Department has issued any official additional explanation regarding this report.

If, as the Inspection Department claims, there was no discovery of the draft indictment Word file on the PCs of Lee’s close associates, then Chief Han’s defamation lawsuit against the reporters and Minister Park’s statement that "there is no problem" would not be an issue.

However, if the Inspection Department’s denial of the discovery is false, it cannot be overlooked.

It is necessary to clearly ascertain what the Inspection Department reported belatedly to Minister Park, and if the draft indictment file was found on the PCs of Lee’s close associates, exactly when the Inspection Department confirmed this.

Currently, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) is investigating the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office investigation team prosecutors who indicted Lee as the main suspects of the indictment leak, following a complaint from a pro-government civic group. If the Inspection Department, which previously conducted the inspection, had disclosed that these investigation team members were not among the 22 investigation subjects and that a draft indictment file similar to the leaked version was found on Prosecutors A and B’s PCs, the CIO’s investigation might have proceeded in a completely different direction.

The Suwon District Prosecutors' Office investigation team prosecutors have requested disclosure of the Inspection Department’s investigation results. The Suwon District Prosecutors' Office also sent an official letter to the Inspection Department demanding disclosure of the investigation details related to Lee’s indictment leak.

Since Chief Han filed a defamation suit against the reporters who raised the allegations, and a civic group has filed a complaint against Chief Han for abuse of authority, obstruction of business by deception, and dereliction of duty related to the 'report omission,' there is a possibility that the truth of the case will emerge during the investigation or trial process.

However, as the CIO’s related investigation is currently underway, a prompt verification of the facts is necessary. Unlike during the 'whistleblower scandal' investigation, the CIO has not taken steps to secure materials related to the Inspection Department’s investigation.

It is a moment requiring the decisive action of Prosecutor General Kim Oh-soo.

Recently, when the 'subcontracted inspection' controversy arose over Chief Han’s illegal forensic examination of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office spokesperson’s official phone and providing it to the CIO, Chief Han only issued a statement saying "I checked but found nothing," without clear explanation, and Prosecutor General Kim emphasized only the special nature of 'inspection' without taking any action.

Now, the Inspection Department chief, who should uncover prosecutors’ misconduct, is suspected of not reporting important misconduct clues to superiors because they are on his side. Prosecutors are urging the disclosure of the Inspection Department’s investigation results, questioning why the Prosecutor General cannot take any action against the Inspection Department chief and only watches cautiously.

Of course, Chief Han himself must first provide a clear explanation regarding this allegation. If the Inspection Department truly did not find the problematic draft indictment on Prosecutors A or B’s PCs, he should clearly state this to end unnecessary misunderstandings and controversies. If not, he must provide a convincing explanation to the public as to why the Ministry of Justice was not promptly informed.

Hiding behind the signboard of the Inspection Department and waiting for the case to be forgotten is not the solution. Even if the minister defends and the prosecutor general shields him, the truth will eventually come to light.

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