Foreign Correspondents and Opposition Lawmakers' Acquaintances... Fact Check on the Corruption Investigation Office's 'Illegal Surveillance' Controversy

Kim Jin-wook, Chief of the Corruption Investigation Office, to Attend National Assembly This Afternoon... Responding to Current Issue Questions

Kim Jin-wook, Chief of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials./Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy reporters Choi Seok-jin, legal affairs specialist, and Jo Seong-pil] As it has been confirmed that the High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Agency (Gong-su-cheo) conducted extensive communication data inquiries and executed communication warrants, sparking suspicions of ‘illegal surveillance,’ controversy is spreading as Gong-su-cheo has yet to provide a clear explanation.

In particular, Gong-su-cheo, which has promoted itself as a ‘human rights-friendly investigative agency’ and emphasized minimizing compulsory investigations, is criticized for repeating the wrongful investigative practices of past police or prosecution agencies and claiming that ‘there is no legal problem,’ which is seen as forgetting the very purpose of Gong-su-cheo’s existence.

◆Reporters, politicians, family members, and ordinary citizens... Hundreds of communication data inquiries within eight months of full-scale investigation

According to the legal community on the 30th, the confirmed communication data inquiries by Gong-su-cheo so far include hundreds of individuals such as about 80 politicians including 78 members of the People Power Party, about 140 reporters including foreign correspondents, and representatives of civic groups and ordinary citizens. Yoon Seok-yeol, the People Power Party’s presidential candidate, and his wife Kim Geon-hee were also included.

Considering that Gong-su-cheo initiated its first investigation at the end of April by filing the ‘Gongje No. 1’ case involving Seoul Education Superintendent Cho Hee-yeon’s abuse of authority and that the number of ongoing investigations is not large, it means that a considerably extensive communication data inquiry has been conducted within just eight months.

Gong-su-cheo obtained communication warrants to check the communication data of members participating in the People Power Party lawmakers’ KakaoTalk group chat rooms, confirmed the communication details of a TV Chosun reporter who reported on Prosecutor General Lee Seong-yoon’s ‘emperor escort’ incident, and even checked the family’s communication data. On the same day, Asahi Shimbun publicly demanded an explanation, stating that Gong-su-cheo had inquired into the communication data of a Korean reporter affiliated with its Seoul bureau.

◆“Excessive, scope should have been minimized”… Criticism of ‘surveillance’ and ‘abuse of investigative authority’ arises

The main reason Gong-su-cheo is criticized is that the scope of communication inquiries was excessively broad. Article 8 of the Case Handling Rules established by Gong-su-cheo (Principle of Voluntary Investigation) stipulates that compulsory investigations must be used within the minimum necessary scope (Paragraph 1), and even when compulsory investigation is necessary, the method that causes the least infringement on the subject’s rights must be used (Paragraph 2).

Regarding the recent communication inquiry into the opposition party lawmakers’ group chat room, Prosecutor A said, “Compared to general investigative practices, when investigating a group chat room, unless all participants are suspected of criminal charges as in the ‘Nth Room’ case, the entire group is not investigated.” He added, “For example, if investigating a charge of official secret leakage, secret conversations are usually not posted in the group chat. In that sense, Gong-su-cheo’s recent behavior is excessive.”

Lawyer B, a former judge, said, “If a confidential article was leaked on January 1 and the confidential information was created on December 20, there is no need to check call records after January 1 or before December 20.” He added, “If they looked into the periods before and after the problematic time, it is an abuse of investigative authority.”

Opposition party lawmaker C, a legal affairs committee member with a legal background, also said, “Even if an investigative agency obtains a warrant for a group chat room, the warrant is for investigation purposes only, so inquiries should be made only for those suspected of criminal charges or showing signs of conspiracy.” He added, “Since the investigation was presumably related to the allegation of ‘reporter solicitation,’ if all participants in the group chat room involving indicted lawmakers were indiscriminately checked, it can be seen as surveillance.”

◆“The prosecution did it too?”… “Not something Gong-su-cheo should say. Also violates Case Handling Rules”

Some argue that such indiscriminate communication data inquiries are not unique to Gong-su-cheo but have been a practice of other investigative agencies like the police or prosecution in the past.

Within Gong-su-cheo, there is a sensed atmosphere of grievance, citing that when Yoon was the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, he checked the communication data of Hong Jun-pyo’s then Liberty Korea Party chief secretary, and that as Prosecutor General, he checked the communication data of 2.82 million people.

However, former prosecutor D pointed out, “First of all, the number of cases handled by Gong-su-cheo and the prosecution differs so much that they cannot be compared.” He added, “Moreover, just because the prosecution did wrong does not mean Gong-su-cheo, which was created to reform, should do the same.”

He continued, “This behavior contradicts the ‘human rights-friendly investigation’ that Gong-su-cheo Chief Kim Jin-wook has emphasized and the ‘minimization of compulsory investigations’ policy set forth in Gong-su-cheo’s own Case Handling Rules.”

◆“Issue of whether exercising legitimate authority… Gong-su-cheo must explain”… Attention on Chief Kim Jin-wook’s National Assembly response at 2 p.m. today

In principle, investigative agencies are not obligated to disclose the details of communication data inquiries or the execution of communication warrants to the subjects, as investigation confidentiality is important. However, the current situation is different.

D said, “Gong-su-cheo missed the timing to explain, which made people suspect that it might have done something it cannot explain.” He added, “In principle, investigative agencies are not obliged to explain communication data inquiries or search and seizure details, but now it has become a social issue, and Gong-su-cheo’s explanation is necessary.”

He further emphasized, “For example, checking the communication data of a reporter’s family who reported critically on Gong-su-cheo could be seen as retaliatory investigation. The current issue is not whether it is legal or illegal but whether it is an exercise of legitimate authority or an abuse of authority.”

About two weeks after the controversy erupted, Gong-su-cheo expressed regret in a statement on the 24th, saying that it caused controversy by repeating past investigative practices without deep reflection.

However, at that time, Gong-su-cheo emphasized that “since its launch this year, all investigative activities have been conducted legally based on laws and court warrants, and efforts have been made to minimize human rights violations during investigations such as questioning related parties and securing evidence,” asserting that Gong-su-cheo’s actions were legally sound.

Meanwhile, Chief Kim is scheduled to appear before the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee at 2 p.m. today to respond to lawmakers’ questions on current issues. Attention is focused on what explanations Kim will provide beyond a comprehensive apology or expression of regret regarding the controversial ‘indiscriminate communication data inquiries’ and the execution of warrants on the opposition party lawmakers’ KakaoTalk group chat rooms.

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