Controversy Over Corruption Investigation Agency's Communication Checks Intensifies... Additional Verification by Foreign Journalists (Comprehensive)

From Asahi to Tokyo Shimbun, the Corruption Investigation Office Demands Explanation... "Possibility of Inappropriate Information Collection"

Kim Jin-wook, Chief of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, is attending the plenary meeting of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee held at the National Assembly on the 30th, responding to questions from lawmakers. Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] Additional comprehensive communication data inquiries by the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Agency (HCIA) have been confirmed. Although HCIA Chief Kim Jin-wook appeared before the National Assembly and responded by saying "this is not surveillance," it has been revealed that communication data inquiries were made not only on presidential candidates and their spouses but also on foreign correspondents, making it unlikely that the criticism will subside easily.

According to the legal community on the 31st, the Tokyo Shimbun reported in its print edition that "HCIA inquired about the communication data of a Korean employee belonging to its Seoul bureau last August," adding that "this could be an inappropriate information collection threatening freedom of the press." The information provided by the telecommunications company included that HCIA checked the name and resident registration number of the bureau employee last August. The reason for the inquiry was cited as "information collection to prevent harm to trials, investigations, execution of sentences, or national security in accordance with Article 83 of the Telecommunications Business Act."

Prior to the Tokyo Shimbun report, the Asahi Shimbun publicly demanded an explanation for HCIA's inquiry into the communication data of a Korean reporter belonging to the Seoul bureau, which occurred twice in July and August this year. This was the first confirmation that HCIA had inquired into the communication data of not only domestic politicians and journalists but also foreign correspondents, leading to criticism that HCIA's scope of communication data inquiries was excessively broad.

HCIA's responses have also been controversial day after day. The Asahi Shimbun reported that HCIA stated in a response letter, "It was unavoidable to request verification of the call counterpart of the suspect lawfully obtained with court approval," but when asked for specific details, HCIA reportedly said, "Please understand that it is difficult to respond as the investigation is currently ongoing."

Chief Kim's response at the National Assembly the previous day, saying, "Prosecutors and police do this a lot too, so why is only HCIA being accused of surveillance?" has also become problematic. He did not mention that prosecutors were conducting investigations on 3.32 million cases at the time, while HCIA was investigating only 24 cases. Considering that HCIA initiated its first investigation in late April with the abuse of authority case involving Seoul Education Superintendent Cho Hee-yeon as 'HCIA Case No. 1' and that the number of ongoing investigations is not large, an excessive number of communication data inquiries have been made within just eight months.

Additionally, HCIA obtained communication warrants and checked the communication data of members participating in the KakaoTalk group chat of People Power Party lawmakers, and it is known that they also checked the communication details of a TV Chosun reporter who reported on the ‘emperor escort’ case involving Prosecutor General Lee Sung-yoon, including the reporter’s family communication data.

However, there is a possibility that the scope of HCIA's communication data inquiries may be somewhat reduced in the future. Chief Kim stated, "I don't think there has ever been a precedent where the head of an agency came out to the National Assembly to respond because communication inquiries became an issue during an investigation," adding, "We will reflect on whether our scope was too broad. Although there is no illegality, we will minimize the scope when conducting investigations going forward."

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