[취재파일] Lessons left by the Han Myung-sook case

The prosecution finally dismissed the suspicion that two inmates had perjured in court 10 years ago to condemn former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook. Since there was a problem in the decision process, the discussion process was re-evaluated under the direction of the investigation by Justice Minister Park Beom-gye to hold a meeting of the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office to deliberate again, but the conclusion did not change. At the meeting of the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Swordsman, the argument that the prosecution should be dismissed was overwhelming, with 10 non-prosecution opinions, two prosecution opinions, and two abstentions. The prosecution concluded that the inmates did not lie, and thus the prosecutor had never instructed the inmates to lie.

Minister Park Bum-gye did not retreat. The conclusion that it is not perjury is bound to be accepted, but insisting that inappropriate investigation practices from 10 years ago were revealed, and instructed the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office and the Office of the Inspector General of the Ministry of Justice to conduct a thorough joint inspection of the entire investigation process in the case of Han Myung-sook. If the problem is revealed, it has been more than seven years after the three-year limit of disciplinary action, but it is necessary to conduct a joint inspection on the case of Han Myeong-sook in order to check the problems of the direct investigation by the prosecution and to make an alternative. Minister Park ordered that the conclusion of the Great Sword Vice-President’s Meeting not to be disclosed should also be inspected on the case reported immediately after the end of the meeting.

Why is it the’Han Myung-sook case’?

Few people will be opposed to the justification itself to examine inappropriate practices related to direct prosecution investigations. The question is, why is it the Han Myeong-sook case? As mentioned earlier, this case is a case where disciplinary statutes have passed a long time ago, so even if a problem is found, it cannot be disciplined. In addition, it was not once or twice after the case of Han Myung-suk that the parties in the case made a problem with the prosecution’s inappropriate investigation method. During the investigation of former presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye, which the prosecution highly regarded by the government, the parties in the case argued that the prosecution had violated human rights through inappropriate investigation methods. During the investigation of the NIS and the military police case, three of them killed themselves. Choi Seo-won also claimed that the prosecution used her daughter, Jeong Yu-ra, to press her. If you have to inspect Han Myung-suk’s case even after 10 years have passed because inappropriate investigation practices have to be identified and corrected, why not inspect the controversy related to the current government’s obliteration investigation, which has occurred much more recently?

The answer to this question is so clear. This is because the person who was investigated was not Lee Myung-bak, Park Geun-hye, or Won Se-hoon, but Han Myung-sook on our side. This is because this case is a key concern of the president and other officials of the Blue House and the ruling party. Some argue that when such a story comes out, it is not to overturn the ruling that Han Myung-sook received the money, but to accuse the prosecution of illegal investigation methods. Had it been revealed that prosecutors had taught inmates of perjury, this claim could have been convincing. However, before this government, the Minister of Justice’s authority to conduct investigations, which had only been exercised once, was invoked twice for this case, and even after the conclusion was concluded, the Supreme Swordsman’s Meeting was held to deliberate again, but the final conclusion was It wasn’t perjury, and there was no perjury teacher. The result was that the Ministry of Justice had no choice but to accept it. The question of whether the prosecutor was illegal has disappeared, leaving only controversy over whether the investigation practices of 10 years ago were inappropriate. Nevertheless, there is only one reason why the case should be picked up and even joint inspected. This is because it is the case of’Han Myung-sook’.

Im Eun-jung, who revealed the information of the inspection, inspected the information leak?

It is difficult to avoid criticism that the command to inspect the case of the report of the results of the Supreme Swordsman’s Meeting is also a criticism that it is a’near-nambul’-style retaliatory inspection. Prosecutor Lim Eun-jung said that he was in the position of “the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office” and posted the contents of the inspection on his Facebook twice. Nam-gwan Cho, the prosecutor general’s office, or the Spokesperson’s Office of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office has not given permission to disclose the contents of the inspection. If it is a problem that the results of the Supreme Swordsman’s Meeting are disclosed, the controversy related to Prosecutor Im Eun-jung should also be subject to inspection. However, Prosecutor Eun-jung Lim said that instead of being inspected, he would rather participate as a member of the inspection team. This is why the word’Narrow Nambul’ must come out. (After the announcement of the Prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice that Prosecutor Im Eun-jung will participate in the prosecution, Minister Park Bum-gye said, “If there is a problem, it may be appropriate for Prosecutor Im not to inspect the media leak.” Prosecutor Lim Eun-jung is also a group of people who failed to achieve their will due to the overwhelming majority opposition while arguing for the prosecution at the Supreme Swordsman’s Meeting. Did the Ministry of Justice, which emphasized that the process of handling the Han Myung-sook case,’not only should be really fair, but also look fair’, decided that the concern that it would become a’retaliation inspection’ between Dong-soo Han and Eun-jung Lim was not a problem?

The’legacy’ of the Han Myung-sook case

What has happened in the last 10 months over the case of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook has set a very dangerous precedent. Even if the Supreme Court convicted of conviction based on immovable material evidence, there is a case that prosecutors who participated in the investigation could face prosecution and prosecution as well as personnel disadvantage if political forces close to the convicted person take power. It is established. It even showed that even if he managed to escape the charges, he could be re-inspected for improper practices 10 years ago. There are two lessons this case left for the prosecution. The first is that you should never touch a big politician who belongs to a political force that is likely to take power in the future. The second is that if the power wants an investigation, it will not matter if controversy arises, but if the power does an investigation that the power does not want, it will be questioned for’wrong practice’ even after 10 years. The more prosecutors learn these two lessons, the more comfortable they will sleep for those in power. However, corruption like pus on the verge of festering will prevail throughout the country. It is the’legacy’ of the Han Myung-sook case.

(Photo = Yonhap News)