One Month of 'Gongsoocheo Surveillance' Controversy... Growing Additional Cases and Unconvincing Explanations Raise Concerns

Kim Jin-wook, Chief of the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Agency, attended the plenary meeting of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee held at the National Assembly on December 30 last year and responded to the members' questions. Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The controversy over surveillance by the High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Agency (Hogwan Gongjikja Beomjoe Susa Cheo, Gongsucheo) has reached its one-month mark. Since the first media report on the issue on the 8th of last month, numerous additional cases of extensive communication data inquiries have been continuously confirmed.

Gongsucheo’s explanations, such as “confirming the call recipients of suspects” or “investigative practices also conducted by the prosecution and police,” have become unconvincing, and even the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission has officially expressed concern.

Within the legal community, voices are growing for reform of the current system that allows investigative agencies to obtain communication data from telecom companies without a warrant, as well as for strengthening the court’s standards for issuing communication warrants.

Gongsucheo’s Inquiry Went Beyond Communication Data to Call Records

On the 8th of last month, TV Chosun first reported that Gongsucheo had inquired about communication data 15 times regarding reporters from the legal affairs teams.

At that time, Gongsucheo explained that it was “to confirm the call recipients of the investigation targets.” The rationale was that it was an unavoidable measure to identify who the suspects had called in an investigation into the leak of official secrets.

However, this explanation by Gongsucheo was soon proven false. Shortly thereafter, it was revealed that Gongsucheo had even inquired about the communication data of the reporter’s mother and younger sister, among other family members.

Under Article 83, Paragraph 3 of the Telecommunications Business Act, “communication data inquiry” allows prosecutors to arbitrarily receive users’ names, resident registration numbers, addresses, etc., from telecom companies for investigation or trial purposes without a court warrant. In contrast, “communication fact confirmation data inquiry,” i.e., “call record inquiry,” under Article 13 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act requires a court warrant.

The fact that Gongsucheo inquired about the communication data of the users (reporters) who were confirmed through communication data to have called others means that they must have obtained a warrant to check the call records. In this case, the investigative agency obtains not only the counterparties and times of calls or text transmissions but also call duration and the location information of the originating base station.

Increasing Cases of Indiscriminate Communication Data Inquiries

As of the 6th, it has been confirmed that over 160 reporters from legal affairs or political departments of dozens of media outlets, including Asia Economy, and 4 foreign correspondents have had their communication data inquired by Gongsucheo.

Communication data inquiries by Gongsucheo were also conducted on 80 opposition party lawmakers participating in a KakaoTalk group chat, Yoon Seok-youl, the People Power Party’s presidential candidate, and his wife Kim Geon-hee, key staff members of the People Power Party’s primary campaign including Hong Jun-pyo, Yoo Seung-min, and Won Hee-ryong, People Power Party floor leader Kim Ki-hyun and policy committee chairman Kim Do-eup, Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, Gongsucheo Chief Kim Jin-wook, the representative of the civic group “Action Alliance for Restoring the Rule of Law (Beopse-ryeon)” Lee Jong-bae who filed a complaint against Kim, the representative of the veterans’ organization Youth Future Union supporting survivors and bereaved families of the Cheonan ship sinking, and six members of the university student group “New National University Student Representatives Council.”

Kim Jin-wook’s Unrepentant Attitude and Unconvincing Explanations Fuel Controversy

On the 30th of last month, Chief Kim appeared before the National Assembly to state his position on the surveillance controversy. Given that indiscriminate communication data inquiries into political circles, media, and civic groups had already been confirmed, it was expected that Kim would issue an apology, but instead, he focused on emphasizing that “there is no legal problem.”

Despite lawmakers’ reproaches, he hurriedly defended himself with statements such as “I cannot say it was excessive,” “According to the law, the requirement for communication data inquiry is related to the user, not the case,” “We did not pry into personal details but received subscriber information,” and “It is not illegal, so it is not surveillance.”

In particular, Kim compared the statistics of communication inquiries by the prosecution and police with those of Gongsucheo, expressing grievance by saying, “I don’t understand why only we (Gongsucheo) are accused of surveillance,” but considering the total number of ongoing cases under investigation, it was confirmed that Gongsucheo had in fact inquired about far more communication data, which led to criticism from opposition lawmakers.

The fact that Gongsucheo, symbolizing the Moon Jae-in administration’s prosecution reform, has failed to break away from and instead is repeating the prosecution’s flawed investigative practices, and Kim’s seemingly complacent attitude, have disappointed many citizens.

Even the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission Expresses Concern... Need to Strengthen Communication Data Inquiry Requirements

Attorney A, a former prosecutor, pointed out, “Communication data inquiries, especially call record inquiries, should be conducted within a limited scope targeting individuals with concrete links to crimes. In the case of Gongsucheo, perhaps due to lack of investigative experience, the inquiries were conducted too broadly,” adding, “Since the current law’s communication data inquiry provisions circumvent the warrant principle, the requirements need to be more specifically defined.”

Within the legal community, there are many opinions that Gongsucheo’s inquiry into the call records of reporters who published articles critical of them is enough to be misunderstood as “retaliatory investigation.” Especially in cases involving “leak of official secrets,” if investigative techniques that trace sources through call record inquiries on reporters are allowed without restriction, the confidentiality rights of sources could become meaningless, causing serious infringement on press freedom.

Also, the fact that communication data of all participants in a group chat was inquired simply because one or two opposition lawmakers involved in the “whistleblower solicitation” case were members is considered excessive. Furthermore, there are criticisms regarding the court’s decision to issue communication warrants for reporters whose cases have little connection to the ongoing investigations.

Even Song Doo-hwan, Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, issued a statement that day saying, “When providing personal information such as communication data, it should be provided minimally within the scope absolutely necessary for the investigation, and appropriate control procedures should be established in relevant laws to minimize basic human rights violations.”

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