Constitutional Court Dismisses Case on Exclusion of Lee Jae-yong from Investigation Review Committee Due to 'Wonbulgyo Believer' Status

"Cannot Be Seen as an Agent of State Authority"
Does Not Judge Whether Religious Freedom and Equality Rights Are Violated

The constitutional complaint case filed on the grounds that the exclusion of a current affairs committee member related to Lee Jae-yong, then Vice Chairman of Samsung Electronics, by the Prosecutor's Office Investigation Deliberation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Investigation Deliberation Committee) in 2021 due to being a Wonbuddhism believer was a violation of fundamental rights was dismissed by the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court cited that the Investigation Deliberation Committee is merely an internal body of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office and cannot be regarded as an independent subject exercising public authority. However, the Wonbuddhism side expressed regret, stating that this was a clear violation of fundamental rights and an exercise of public authority involving discriminatory treatment for religious reasons.

Constitutional Court Grand Bench. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

According to the legal community on the 7th, the Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the constitutional complaint filed by Mr. Jeong, a Wonbuddhism believer, and the Wonbuddhism Foundation against the Investigation Deliberation Committee.

The Investigation Deliberation Committee is an organization established within the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to review the investigation process and evaluate the legality of investigation results in cases that raise public suspicion or attract social attention. Members selected from various fields such as the legal community, academia, and civic groups deliberate on whether to continue investigations, prosecute, or request arrest warrants, and recommend these to the prosecution.

Selected as a Current Affairs Committee Member but Excluded Due to Recusal Request by Chief Prosecutor... Reason: "Lee Jae-yong's Family Supports Wonbuddhism"

Mr. Jeong, who joined Wonbuddhism in 1981, was appointed as a member of the Investigation Deliberation Committee for a two-year term in January 2018 and was reappointed in January 2020, continuing his role. Through a random draw, he was selected as a current affairs committee member on March 26, 2021, to review the appropriateness of the prosecution's investigation and indictment regarding the then Vice Chairman's alleged propofol use, and was requested to attend by the Investigation Deliberation Committee.

On the day of the current affairs committee meeting, Mr. Jeong traveled from Jeonju, Jeollabuk-do to Seoul to attend the meeting, but immediately after the meeting began, the chief prosecutor filed a recusal request against him. The reason given was that "Lee's family is known to have provided significant financial support to Wonbuddhism, raising concerns about the fairness of the deliberation."

Yang Chang-soo, then chairman of the Investigation Deliberation Committee, ordered Mr. Jeong to wait outside the meeting room and conducted a vote among the other 15 current affairs committee members on whether to accept the recusal. About 10 minutes later, Chairman Yang verbally notified Mr. Jeong that "the chief prosecutor's recusal request has been accepted, so you cannot attend the current affairs committee meeting." The meeting proceeded with the remaining 14 members and resolved to "halt the investigation" against Lee.

At the time, Mr. Jeong received no explanation for his recusal from the current affairs committee and later learned through media reports that Lee's parents were Wonbuddhism believers and that the Samsung Group had financially supported the Wonbuddhism Foundation, and that he was excluded from the deliberation because he was a Wonbuddhism believer.

Wonbuddhism's Backlash, Growing Controversy Over 'Religious Discrimination'... Prosecution Conveys Apology

In response to this action, the Wonbuddhism side strongly protested through a statement, calling it "a highly unfair measure that violates the operating guidelines of the Investigation Deliberation Committee and common sense."

The Wonbuddhism side questioned the prosecution, stating, "The recused current affairs committee member has no personal relationship or any vested interest with Vice Chairman Lee," and asked, "What is the basis for judging that the member could compromise the fairness of the deliberation?" They also emphasized, "If the subject of deliberation were relatively large religious groups such as Protestants or Catholics, the committee members should be selected only from those who are not Protestants or Catholics. Otherwise, this decision constitutes discrimination against the member's religion, Wonbuddhism."

As the controversy over religious discrimination grew, the prosecution eventually sent a prosecutor from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to the Sotaesan Memorial Hall in Dongjak-gu, Seoul, where the Wonbuddhism Seoul Temple is located, to deliver an apology and promise to prevent recurrence.

At the time, the prosecution conveyed through an official document to the Wonbuddhism side that "this was not discrimination against a specific religious group, but as pointed out by Wonbuddhism, there is a possibility that it was handled without reasonable grounds, and we will be mindful to prevent such misunderstandings in the future."

Sotaesan Memorial Hall, built by Won Buddhism to commemorate its 100th anniversary, located on Hyeonchung-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul.
[Photo by Yonhap News]

"Serious Defamation and Religious Discrimination" vs. "Internal Organizational Act and Not a Subject Exercising Public Authority"

Although the prosecution apologized, the Wonbuddhism side filed a constitutional complaint in June 2021, requesting the Constitutional Court to confirm that the recusal decision by the Investigation Deliberation Committee was unconstitutional, clearly asserting that the committee's decision violated the religious freedom and equality rights of Mr. Jeong and the Wonbuddhism Foundation.

In the constitutional complaint, the Wonbuddhism side argued, "The respondent (Investigation Deliberation Committee) based the recusal decision on the prosecutor's vague claim that the family of the investigation subject financially supported Wonbuddhism, concluding that the petitioner, a Wonbuddhism believer, could not fairly deliberate as a current affairs committee member. This recusal decision is based on a serious distortion of facts and judgment that 'Wonbuddhism believers cannot make objective and fair judgments about people of the same religion (fellow Wonbuddhism believers) and will make unfair decisions influenced by personal feelings.' It constitutes serious defamation and religious discrimination against Wonbuddhism and its believers, infringing on the petitioners' constitutional rights to equality and religious freedom."

Legally, they argued, "To restrict constitutional rights, the principle of legal reservation under Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution requires that it must be based on law. This case, which restricted fundamental rights based on the administrative rule 'Investigation Deliberation Committee Operating Guidelines' without legal delegation, must be strictly reviewed for constitutionality. Interpreting 'religious background,' which is not stipulated as a ground for recusal in the guidelines, as falling under 'other persons inappropriate to participate in deliberation' in Article 11, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the guidelines and making a recusal decision exceeds the scope of legal delegation recognized by the Constitution and constitutes an exercise of public authority without legal basis."

However, the Constitutional Court dismissed the case without substantive judgment on whether fundamental rights were violated, stating that the recusal decision against Mr. Jeong by the Investigation Deliberation Committee cannot be regarded as an exercise of public authority subject to constitutional complaint.

The Constitutional Court stated, "The operating guidelines are administrative rules enacted as Supreme Prosecutors' Office regulations, not directly based on or delegated by higher laws. Even if the respondent (Investigation Deliberation Committee) deliberates and resolves and then prepares a deliberation opinion and sends it to the chief prosecutor or the Prosecutor General in charge of the case, the deliberation opinion is not binding. Therefore, the respondent is not an independent administrative agency making binding external declarations but merely an internal body of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office participating in the prosecution's investigation and indictment procedures and does not constitute an independent subject exercising public authority."

It further concluded, "This recusal decision is merely an internal organizational act to confirm the current affairs committee members participating in the deliberation process and cannot be considered an act that externally produces direct legal effects on the rights and obligations of the people."

Wonbuddhism Side: "Religion Used as a Means to Recuse Members Unfavorable to Prosecution"... "Risk of Undermining the Purpose of Establishing the Investigation Deliberation Committee"

The Wonbuddhism side expressed strong regret over the Constitutional Court's decision.

Attorney Cho Seong-ho of Gangnam Law Firm, representing the Wonbuddhism side in this case, said, "The Constitutional Court has so far judged whether an act constitutes an exercise of public authority based on the 'possibility of infringement of fundamental rights.' Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has ruled that decisions of various administrative committees, such as the National Human Rights Commission, constitute exercises of public authority subject to constitutional complaints."

He added, "The Investigation Deliberation Committee is a committee established within the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to enhance public trust in the prosecution's investigation procedures and results. According to the operating guidelines, the Prosecutor General appoints members and the chairman, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's Policy Planning Division Chief serves as secretary to support committee operations, and other staff are assigned. Considering the respondent's purpose, role, appointing authority (Prosecutor General), and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's support for its operation, it should be regarded as an independent public institution."

Attorney Cho also pointed out, "At the time of the recusal decision, the chief prosecutor appears to have filed the recusal request based on a vague assumption that petitioner Mr. Jeong would oppose the investigation and prosecution of Vice Chairman Lee because they share the same religion as Lee's parents. This was an attempt to form a committee composed only of members expected to agree with the prosecution's position by recusing members expected to oppose the investigation and prosecution of Lee and obtain a favorable resolution. In other words, the prosecution used religion as a means to recuse members expected to oppose its position without reasonable grounds."

He added, "If the unconstitutionality of this recusal decision is not clarified through the Constitutional Court, the prosecution may use the personal religion of current affairs committee members as a means to recuse members unfavorable to the prosecution in other cases, which could be abused. This poses a significant risk of undermining the purpose of establishing the Investigation Deliberation Committee, which is to ensure objectivity and fairness in prosecution investigations through checks on prosecutorial authority and to enhance public trust."

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