Former Air Force Legal Office Chief Jeon Ik-su, Acquitted in Investigation Interference of Late Lee Ye-ram Case

Former Air Force Legal Office Chief Jeon Ik-su, who was indicted for improper interference in the military investigation of the late Sergeant Lee Ye-ram's death case, was acquitted.

Jeon Ik-su, Air Force Legal Office Chief, attending court. Photo by Yonhap News

On the 10th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) upheld the lower court's ruling that acquitted former Chief Jeon, who was charged with coercion of interviews under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes.

The Supreme Court stated, "There is no error in the legal interpretation regarding the establishment of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, breach of official secrecy, and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act."

Former Chief Jeon was suspected of being responsible for the inadequate initial investigation during the process in which Sergeant Lee Ye-ram, who belonged to the Air Force 20th Fighter Wing, was sexually harassed by a senior non-commissioned officer on March 2, 2021, and later took her own life on May 21 of the same year.

In July 2021, Jeon was indicted in September 2022 on charges including calling a military prosecutor who requested an arrest warrant "wrong" after the arrest warrant for military civilian employee Yang (52), who allegedly provided him with security information related to Sergeant Lee's case, was dismissed.

Under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, coercing or exerting power to force an interview without justifiable reason on a person who knows necessary facts related to the investigation or trial of a criminal case involving oneself or others is considered a retaliatory crime and punishable. Former Chief Jeon was demoted from brigadier general to colonel in November 2022 as disciplinary action.

However, both the first and second trials acquitted Jeon. The second trial stated, "The crime of coercion of interviews was basically enacted to protect witnesses and reference persons, so unless there are special circumstances, it is difficult to apply this law to punish acts of requesting interviews from investigators." However, it added, "This does not mean that the defendant's actions are justified or legally justified."

The special prosecutor's office appealed, but the Supreme Court found no error in the second trial's ruling and dismissed the appeal on the day.

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