Criticism Pours In Over 'Seongnam FC Suspicion Supplementary Investigation' Order... "This Is No Joke"

"An Investigation Not Within the Prosecution's Command System
Should Be Directed by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, Not District or High Prosecutors' Offices"
Supreme Prosecutors' Office: "No Fault in Investigation Orders"
Criticism Grows: "Leave It to Park Eun-jeong"
Possibility of Requesting Supplementary Investigation from Police
Uncertain Whether a New Conclusion Will Emerge

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporters Kim Hyung-min and Gong Byung-sun] As the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office ordered the Seongnam Branch to conduct supplementary investigations into the 'Seongnam FC sponsorship fund allegations,' criticism has intensified both inside and outside the prosecution.

On the 8th, according to the legal community, attorney Kim Jong-min, who has served as the heads of the Suncheon and Hongseong branches, wrote on social media (SNS), "What kind of trick is the Supreme Prosecutors' Office and Suwon District Prosecutors' Office playing? The decision by the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office is not part of the prosecution's investigative command system," adding, "The branch office's investigation reports directly to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, and depending on the case, the Anti-Corruption Department, Public Security Department, or Criminal Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office directly command the branch's investigation." He further pointed out, "The Seongnam FC case falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's Anti-Corruption Department. After the Anti-Corruption Department's prosecutor researcher receives and reviews the Seongnam Branch's report, it goes through the section chief and the head of the Anti-Corruption Department, then to the deputy chief and the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, with the Prosecutor General ultimately directing the case personally. The Seongnam Branch only reports to the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office and Suwon High Prosecutors' Office but does not receive commands from them."

A frontline prosecutor in the Seoul metropolitan area said, "The reporting and command structure can vary depending on the case," but added, "Considering the importance of the Seongnam FC case, it is appropriate for the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to command it. If the district and high prosecutors' offices intervene in the middle, it could only cause confusion." This suggests that the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office's decision could cause confusion in the investigation. A Supreme Prosecutors' Office official cited Article 22 of the Prosecutors' Office Act, which states that "the branch chief handles the affairs under the order of the district prosecutors' office chief and supervises and directs subordinate officials," and said, "It is difficult to see the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office's order for supplementary investigation as wrong." The official also explained that the decision made after the chiefs' meeting was "within the discretion of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office."

Despite this explanation from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, critical public opinion is expected to continue for some time. There are already voices calling the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office's command to have Park Eun-jung, the Seongnam Branch chief, who is known to have covered up the Seongnam FC sponsorship fund investigation, conduct supplementary investigations "absurd," and suspicions have arisen that Prosecutor General Kim Oh-soo is trying to evade responsibility through this tactic.

The Seongnam Branch is reportedly deliberating on the direction of handling the case. A Seongnam Branch official said, "The investigation team in charge of the case will internally discuss and decide whether to conduct a direct investigation." There is also speculation that they may request supplementary investigations from the police. A lawyer in Seocho-dong said, "The Seongnam FC case was brought to the prosecution following the complainant's objection to the police's decision of no charges," adding, "If there is a problem, the prosecution can certainly request supplementary investigations from the police."

Even if the police conduct supplementary investigations, it is uncertain whether the conclusion will differ from before. The core of this investigation is to verify whether there was bribery related to the licensing issues of six companies. Securing and analyzing internal approval documents from Seongnam City Hall during the licensing decision process and internal review documents regarding the companies' sponsorship fund decisions are key. However, the Seongnam Bundang Police Station dragged this investigation on for three years and three months and concluded it with no charges last September, during the ruling party's presidential primary. The fact that the accused is the ruling party's presidential candidate is also seen as a burden from the police's perspective. This aligns with the background of the controversy over a 'lenient investigation' raised at the time of the no-charge conclusion last year.

Earlier, the police explained, "After thoroughly reviewing the records, we decided not to prosecute due to lack of evidence," but the controversy did not easily subside. Ultimately, this controversy is expected to remain a burden the police will have to bear during the upcoming supplementary investigation period.

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