[Column] The Whistleblower Scandal and the Prosecutor-Media Collusion Case Must Be Resolved by Those Responsible

Seokjin Choi, Legal Affairs Reporter

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] “It seems that the public perceives that our family-in-law had a somewhat chaotic year last year, which makes me reflect. When I look back on last year, I also reflect on whether I spoke and acted with the weight befitting the head of an investigative agency.”

This was revealed in an email recently sent by Kim Jin-wook, Chief of the High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Unit (HCIC), to his staff. He also quoted a phrase from the I Ching meaning “When in distress, one must change,” suggesting it as a motto for the HCIC this year. This appears to be a statement conscious of President-elect Yoon Seok-yeol, who has called for changes and even mentioned abolishing the HCIC.

The behavior shown by the HCIC over the past year was disappointing, even considering it was the first year since its launch. Due to the complete exclusion of former prosecutors, a lack of investigative capability was somewhat expected, but it even failed to maintain political neutrality, which was its founding principle, thereby negating its own value.

The only actions taken were investigating and transferring to the prosecution Seoul Education Superintendent Cho Hee-yeon, whose facts had already been clarified by the Board of Audit and Inspection, and prosecuting a former chief prosecutor who was convicted by the Supreme Court in 2018 for the ‘sponsor prosecutor’ case, for allegedly accepting a 10 million won bribe seven years ago and providing hospitality worth about 930,000 won twice.

Last year alone, the HCIC investigated President-elect Yoon 30 times based on complaints from the pro-government civic group ‘Sasaehaeng,’ but failed to uncover any criminal charges. Since the revised ‘HCIC Case Handling Rules’ that abolished the ‘selective registration’ system of the HCIC chief were implemented less than ten days ago, all responsibility lies with Chief Kim.

When the ‘emperor escort’ incident was reported?where Lee Seong-yoon, then head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office and a key suspect in the ‘Kim Hak-ui illegal deportation’ case, was chauffeured in the HCIC chief’s official car on a holiday?the HCIC offered a false explanation that other official cars could not open the rear door as they were for transporting arrested suspects, and conducted background checks on the journalists who reported the facts.

Looking back at other illegal searches and indiscriminate communication inquiries committed by the HCIC during investigations, one wonders if it truly is an organization advocating ‘human rights-friendly investigations.’

With less than 50 days until President-elect Yoon’s inauguration, what Chief Kim should do is to conclude major investigations such as the ‘complaint solicitation’ suspicion case and the ‘Lee Seong-yoon public prosecutor indictment leak’ case, which have not been resolved despite focused investigative efforts. Posting a belated reflection and encouraging staff to ‘change when in distress’ is a matter for later.

The ‘complaint solicitation’ case is the one the HCIC and Chief Kim have most diligently investigated. Investigations of key suspects such as Prosecutor Son Jun-sung and People Power Party lawmaker Kim Woong have been completed, and additional related persons have been identified through extensive communication data inquiries.

Chief Kim, confident in proving the charge of ‘abuse of authority,’ initially vowed to “minimize the impact on the presidential election through swift investigation,” but suddenly changed his stance at the end of last year by stating in the National Assembly that “there are various ways to avoid influencing the election.”

During the investigation, it was revealed that whistleblower Jo Seong-eun met National Intelligence Service Director Park Ji-won just before Newsbus’s first report, raising suspicions of ‘whistleblower solicitation.’ Although Director Park was even registered as a suspect, the HCIC has shown a passive attitude toward related investigations.

Now that the election is over, if confident in proving the charges, the HCIC should prosecute and let the court decide; if not, it should admit investigative failure and close the case. Responsibility for the outcome also rests with Chief Kim. In the legal community, there have been many views from the start that even if the whistleblower’s content is true, establishing the crime of abuse of authority is difficult.

It is hoped that Chief Kim will not delay until President-elect Yoon’s inauguration and then cowardly conclude ‘no prosecution’ by citing Article 84 of the Constitution, which states that “the president shall not be subject to criminal prosecution during the term of office except in cases of rebellion or treason.”

The ‘Lee Seong-yoon public prosecutor indictment leak’ case, investigated by the HCIC since May last year, is also a case that no longer needs delay. The HCIC suspected that the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office investigation team leaked the indictment and conducted forced searches, but their prediction was wrong.

According to the investigation by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department, none of the Suwon investigation team members accessed Lee’s indictment through the Criminal Justice Information System (KICS), and instead, a temporary file similar to an edited version of the indictment leaked from Lee’s close associate’s PC was found.

Controversies over illegal searches and ‘subcontracted inspections’ during the investigation only undermined trust in the HCIC. Legally, it is widely believed that the crime of official secret leakage is difficult to establish in this case. If the investigation direction was wrong and legal judgment mistaken, the best course is to admit it as soon as possible. Delaying will not solve the problem.

The prosecution also has a case that needs to be wrapped up quickly: the so-called ‘media collusion’ case investigated for two years.

On March 31, 2020, long before MBC first reported the ‘media collusion’ suspicion, then Open Democratic Party Supreme Council member Hwang Hee-seok shared a photo on his Facebook with party leader Choi Kang-wook, writing, “Now the two of us are going into operation.” Just 30 minutes later, Hwang’s post was shared on the Facebook of whistleblower Ji, with the message “Let’s crush them! Yoon Seok-yeol’s prosecutors!!” This strongly suggests active involvement of ruling party figures in the whistleblowing process. The suspicion of ‘power-media collusion’ or ‘political-media collusion’ was even reported to the prosecution, but no progress was made.

Now summarized as the ‘Channel A coercion attempt’ case, the ‘media collusion’ case was a spark used by the Moon Jae-in administration to weaken the prosecution under the guise of prosecutorial reform. After media reports, then Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae removed Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon from his duties and demoted him to the Judicial Research and Training Institute, simply because suspicions were raised. Han was also excluded from the investigation command of then Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, who was President-elect Yoon’s close associate.

Minister Choo and then Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office Criminal Division Chief Jeong Jin-ung claimed “there is overwhelming evidence,” but when no clues proving Han’s guilt were found even in the released recordings, Chief Jeong conducted additional searches, resulting in an unprecedented incident of ‘abuse of authority’ by a sitting prosecutor. Chief Jeong, who threw himself into an investigation tailored to the regime’s taste, was indicted for ‘abuse of authority’ but was promoted to deputy chief prosecutor, while Han, who was not indicted, wandered between the Judicial Research and Training Institute’s Jincheon headquarters and the Judicial Training Institute.

The result was disastrous. ‘Media collusion’ means collusion between the prosecution and the media, but the prosecution indicted former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae without even naming Prosecutor Han as an accomplice in the indictment. This was a half indictment, removing the ‘prosecution’ part from ‘media collusion.’ The court’s verdict was even more devastating, acquitting Lee for ‘lack of evidence.’

The prosecution has yet to indict Han even after nearly two years since the investigation began, and the case remains unresolved. Last year, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office investigation team and several senior officials repeatedly recommended non-prosecution and case closure for Han, but then Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office Chief Lee Seong-yoon ignored this, citing Han’s phone forensic analysis. One prosecutor even resigned in protest of Han’s unreasonable attitude during this process.

It is unprecedented for an investigative agency responsible for proving criminal charges to delay case handling for years due to failure in evidence analysis. This is especially true since the case was initially believed to have sufficient evidence to prove the charges.

During the investigation, besides Chief Jeong’s ‘abuse of authority,’ several other unsavory incidents occurred. Frustrated at failing to arrest Han, former Minister Choo ordered legislation to forcibly unlock phone passwords but faced public backlash. Public broadcaster KBS aired a major false report claiming that conversations never held between Lee and Han were recorded, resulting in legal sanctions from the Korea Communications Standards Commission and a damages lawsuit.

Now it is time for the prosecution to conclude the case. If it judges that it can prove Han’s involvement in collusion with Lee and coercing former VIK CEO Lee Cheol to provide information on ruling party figures such as Yoo Si-min, chairman of the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation, Han should be prosecuted and judged by the court. If evidence is insufficient, non-prosecution should be decided.

Just as a criminal trial judge must decide guilt or innocence within a set period, investigative agencies should not delay prosecution or non-prosecution decisions without reason. Even without invoking the legal maxim ‘justice delayed is justice denied,’ maintaining suspect status for a long time without prosecution or non-prosecution is an abuse of power and a violation of human rights. Will the case only be closed after President-elect Yoon’s inauguration and a new Minister of Justice is appointed two months from now?

If Han is not indicted and the case closed, the backlash faced by Prosecutor Lee and former Minister Choo, who were confident in proving Han’s charges, will be their own responsibility.

If candidate Lee Jae-myung had won this election, one wonders if the prosecution would have dragged out this case for years without conclusion. The fact that the handling and outcome of investigations depend on who the next president is is an absurd situation caused by former Minister Choo Mi-ae and Minister Park Beom-gye of Justice, who undermined prosecutorial neutrality through personnel and investigation command, and former President Moon who tolerated them. Such a thing must never happen in the next administration.

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