Prosecution-CIO Jurisdiction Conflict Leads to Partial Indictment: Former Audit Board Official Charged for Only 300 Million Won in 1.5 Billion Won Bribery Case

Former Board of Audit and Inspection Official Suspected of Receiving 1.5 Billion Won in Bribes
CIO Refused Supplementary Investigation After Warrant Dismissal
Court Rejects Prosecution's Warrant, Citing "No Authority"
Prosecution: "Institutional Limitations Led to 1.29 Billion Won Not Prosecuted"

The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) investigated and referred a former senior official from the Board of Audit and Inspection on suspicion of receiving bribes totaling around 1.5 billion won. However, the prosecution indicted the official on only some of the charges, while approximately 1.2 billion won worth of allegations were not prosecuted. This outcome resulted from a prolonged investigation, which stalled due to conflicts between the prosecution and the CIO over which agency should conduct supplementary investigations.

Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jinhyung

On April 22, the Criminal Division 5 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (headed by Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jaeshin) indicted Kim, a former deputy director-general at the Board of Audit and Inspection, without detention on charges of bribery, bribery mediation, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (embezzlement). Three construction company executives who gave bribes to Kim at his request were also sent to trial on bribery charges. The prosecution had already indicted Kim on one count of bribery, for which the statute of limitations was about to expire, in June last year.

According to the prosecution, while serving at the Board of Audit and Inspection, Kim allegedly pressured construction companies that had secured contracts from audited agencies to subcontract work to an electrical construction company he operated under a borrowed name. Using this method, he is accused of receiving bribes totaling about 1.58 billion won over 19 separate occasions. He is also suspected of privately misappropriating approximately 1.32 billion won from the borrowed-name company. However, among Kim’s 19 bribery charges, the prosecution indicted only 3 cases (about 290 million won) and did not prosecute the remaining 16 cases (about 1.29 billion won).

The prosecution pointed out that this result was due to the legal limitations of the current supplementary investigation system. The CIO, which initially investigated the case, referred it to the prosecution in November 2023 without further investigation after the court dismissed Kim's arrest warrant. Although the prosecution requested supplementary investigation from the CIO, the CIO refused, stating it lacked legal authority to do so.

Subsequently, the prosecution attempted to investigate directly by applying for a search and seizure warrant from the court in May last year. However, the court rejected the request, citing that there is no legal basis for the prosecution to conduct supplementary investigations on cases handled by the CIO.

As a result, with both the prosecution’s own investigation and its requests for supplementary investigation from the CIO blocked, only the charges substantiated so far were separated and sent to trial after 2 years and 4 months since the case was referred, as the statute of limitations for some offenses approached.

The prosecution stated, "This is a clear example of what happens when prosecutors making charging decisions are not institutionally supported with the right to request supplementary investigations, nor are they granted independent investigative authority." It criticized, "In cases other than complaints or accusations, where there are no means of appeal, the punishment of offenders depends entirely on the willingness and competency of the primary investigative agency, exposing a structural problem." The prosecution added, "If the CIO later submits supplementary investigation materials, we will actively consider reopening the non-prosecuted parts of the case."

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