[The Editors' Verdict] Prosecution and CIO Investigations and the Presidential Election

[Asia Economy Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist Reporter] The presidential election is just two months away.

Since the ruling party candidate Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party of Korea and the main opposition candidate Yoon Seok-youl of the People Power Party show a significant gap in approval ratings compared to the other candidates, barring any special variables, it is highly likely that the next president will be one of the two.

The problem is that both candidates are subjects of investigations by the prosecution or the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO).

With the approval ratings of the two candidates fluctuating closely, resulting in a tighter race than any previous election, the progress or announcement of investigation results could become a decisive factor influencing the election outcome.

First, Candidate Lee is suspected of being the ‘upper echelon’ or ‘mastermind’ behind the ‘Daejang-dong development lobbying and preferential treatment’ allegations currently under prosecution investigation. However, even after more than three months since a dedicated investigation team was formed at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, the prosecution has only indicted private developers, showing no progress in investigating the ‘upper echelon’.

At the beginning of the investigation, the prosecution was suspected of lacking investigative will when it denied the existence of the mobile phone allegedly thrown out the window by Yoo Dong-gyu, former Planning Director of Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, despite police finding the phone within a day and CCTV footage showing no open windows.

The fact that Yoo had multiple phone calls with Jeong Jin-sang, Deputy Chief of the Secretary Office of Lee’s election campaign, and Kim Yong, General Deputy Chief, just before the prosecution’s search and seizure, as well as the existence of a voice recording in which Lee stated that ‘there is no need for the city of Seongnam to recover excess profits,’ were revealed through media reports.

Considering that the Minister of Justice is a current ruling party lawmaker and that the Prosecutor General and the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office have all been classified as pro-government figures, expecting an active prosecution investigation against the ruling party’s presidential candidate might be unrealistic.

In the case of opposition candidate Yoon, investigations are simultaneously underway by both the CIO and the prosecution into him, his family, and close associates. In particular, the CIO has registered Yoon as a suspect in four cases and is currently investigating him.

Unlike the prosecution’s passive investigation of Candidate Lee, the CIO is showing strong investigative will, but the situation is grim. The ‘prosecution request’ allegation case, which has been investigated with Yoon as the alleged mastermind, is at a standstill as the arrest warrant for the primary investigation target, Prosecutor Son Jun-sung, continues to be rejected.

When the ‘prosecution request’ investigation stalled, the focus was quietly shifted to the ‘judge surveillance document’ case, but it has yielded no results either. The CIO’s indiscriminate communication inquiries and illegal search and seizure revealed during the investigation have only fueled controversy.

Kim Jin-wook, head of the CIO, who had promised to “minimize the impact on the presidential election through swift investigation,” recently changed his stance at a National Assembly hearing, stating, “There are various ways to avoid influencing the election.” This is interpreted as meaning the investigation could continue even after the election.

The prosecution began investigating Yoon’s family and close associates during former Minister Chu Mi-ae’s tenure. However, several cases remain unresolved and are still being held.

Last month, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict Yoon and his close associate, Prosecutor General Yoon Dae-jin, on charges of covering up the investigation of former Seoul Yongsan Tax Office chief Yoon Woo-jin. However, the title of the press release issued by the prosecution was not ‘Yoon Seok-youl Non-Indictment’ but ‘Former Tax Office Chief Yoon OO Indicted for Bribery.’

On the same day that Yoon was not indicted, the prosecution additionally indicted former Tax Office chief Yoon, raising suspicions that this was a tactic to prevent headlines such as ‘Yoon Seok-youl Non-Indictment’ or ‘Yoon Seok-youl Cleared’ from appearing in press releases or news articles.

According to Article 84 of the Constitution, which stipulates the ‘immunity from prosecution,’ once elected president, prosecution is impossible for crimes other than rebellion or treason. Both the prosecution and the CIO need to complete their investigations swiftly and disclose the results as soon as possible.

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