Audit Reform Task Force: "Seven Politically Motivated Audits Led by Yoo Byungho"

Board of Audit and Inspection Releases Comprehensive Report
on Operational Reform Task Force Findings

Yonhap News Agency

The Board of Audit and Inspection announced that seven audits, previously criticized for being politically motivated or targeted, were conducted under the direction of former Secretary General Yoo Byungho. There were also allegations that Yoo created a coercive atmosphere through his personnel and inspection authority, and that then-Chairman Choi Jaehae was complicit in this behavior.

On December 3, the Board’s Task Force for Operational Reform released a report detailing these findings. Since September, the task force has been reviewing seven past audits: the audit of the Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant, the audit of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, the audit of the killing of a public official in the West Sea, the audit of the National Statistical Office for data manipulation, the audit of the deliberate delay of the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) deployment, the audit of the relocation of the presidential office and residence, and the audit of the withdrawal of North Korean guard posts.

The task force stated that, unlike other audits, these seven were characterized by the use of a special investigation bureau under Yoo’s direction, public disclosure to the media after requesting investigations, excessively long audit periods, and bypassing the Audit Committee. The task force concluded, “Given these factors, it is difficult to refute criticism that these were politically motivated or targeted audits.” It also added, “(Former Secretary General Yoo) created a coercive atmosphere among staff members by leveraging his personnel and inspection authority, and former Chairman Choi was complicit in this.”

The report identified five main issues: ▲ audits initiated abnormally and the use of a special investigation bureau composed of close associates of the chairman ▲ public announcements to the media after requesting investigations ▲ excessively long audit periods ▲ bypassing the Audit Committee ▲ lenient audits.

The task force criticized the Board for manipulating the computer system to delete the review and approval rights of the presiding committee member during the audit of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, even though the results had not been finalized. It also pointed out that, during the Wolseong audit, then-Chairman Choi issued instructions to the Secretariat that contradicted the Audit Committee’s discussions, thereby infringing on its deliberative authority. Regarding the West Sea audit, the task force maintained its previous position that military secrets were included in the press release.

The task force also noted that Yoo exercised inspection authority or took personnel actions without sufficient grounds and intervened in changes to job performance evaluation grades in violation of personnel regulations. The task force stated, “After taking office, he took personnel actions against employees who did not follow his instructions and continuously issued directives containing warning messages, thereby creating a coercive atmosphere in which it was impossible to refuse his orders.”

The task force defined these audits as “arbitrary audits” and cited the breakdown of the Board’s internal control system due to coercive leadership as a root cause. It also pointed out the lack of adequate systems to prevent excessive audits and the development of an audit culture focused on uncovering corruption.

To prevent such situations, the task force recommended organizational reforms, including improving the system so that the Secretariat cannot bypass the presiding committee member, and abolishing the special investigation bureau, which operated with few restrictions on audit duration and scope.

The task force stated, “Through this operational reform task force, we have confirmed illegal and unjust actions through basic fact-finding investigations,” adding, “We have completed the first phase of the investigation, including reviewing the need for criminal charges and disciplinary action.”

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