Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office Lee Seong-yoon attended the state affairs audit of the Legislative Judicial Council held at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul on October 19 last year to answer questions. News 1
It has been confirmed that the prosecution investigation team investigating the Channel A case has submitted an electronic approval of the conclusion of the’no charge’ disposition of Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon. All of the prosecutors on the investigation team recently visited Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, Lee Seong-yoon, and asked him to approve the “not alleged” report, but there is a strong rebellion against the crushing of this report.
Channel A investigation team left traces of electronic approval
According to the JoongAng Ilbo coverage on the 24th, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office (Director Byun Pil-gun) concluded that he was not accused as a result of an investigation into a prosecutor and posted a proposal for approval through the internal network of the prosecution. Director Byeon is in a state of approval for the approval submitted by the chief prosecutor, and he is awaiting the approval of the second deputy chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office Choi Seong-pil. It is reported that the investigation team requested the deputy general manager Choi instead of the District Prosecutor General who is virtually refusing the approval. The investigation and command of the Channel A case within the central district prosecutor’s office is the deputy chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office Kim Wook-jun, who expressed his gratitude in early December last year.
Within the prosecution, it is interpreted that the investigation team intends to clearly leave traces of the conclusion of an innocence against a prosecutor. An official at the prosecution said, “Generally, e-approval only posts simple criminal cases that do not require face-to-face reporting, but it is quite unusual to post an electronic approval for a case that has attracted social attention.” It seems to be a measure for it.”
All of the investigation team recently requested an interview with the District Prosecutor General and visited the prosecutor’s office to directly report the results of the investigation of the Channel A case. At this meeting, the prosecutors of the investigation team reported in detail the reasons why one prosecutor should be dismissed from charges and why the approval should no longer be delayed. Upon hearing the report, the District Prosecutor’s Office replied with the intention of “I know” on the spot, but he delayed the approval. On the 22nd, when the investigation team posted an electronic payment, Chief Prosecutor Lee did not go to work with an annual leave.
Deputy Chief Choi also reported to the Prosecutor Lee an opinion to the effect that “the investigation team’s conclusion was correct” after reviewing the 130-page report on reasons for innocence prepared by the investigation team. In principle, the electronic approval submitted by the investigation team can be handled by Deputy General Choi. However, in this case, it is highly probable that the Chief Prosecutor Lee will have the room to evade responsibility.
On July 29, last year, the Channel A investigation team further seized and searched the cell phone of Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, a struggle between a prosecutor and the chief of the investigation team. Prosecutor Han sued the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, then the first officer of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, and requested an inspection by saying that it was “self-directed assault using public power.” yunhap news
“If electronic payment is rejected, job abandonment or ex officio abuse”
It is also interpreted that if the District Prosecutor’s Office continues to refuse approval, he will be subject to criminal penalties for job abandonment or ex officio abuse. A high-ranking official at the prosecution said, “Lee District Prosecutor’s Office is taking a hostage in the Channel A case in order to survive,” he said.
An official at the Central District Prosecutors’ Office said, “The conclusion of the disposition (related to the Channel A case) has not been reached. The reporters contacted Prosecutor Lee to inquire about the allegations, but he did not respond to phone calls and text messages.
Attorney Han Dong-hoon. yunhap news
The Channel A case began in March last year when a reporter from Channel A approached Lee Chul, the majority shareholder of Shillagen, who was incarcerated with an acquaintance with a prosecutor, and pressured him to confide in the mischief of the chairman of the Roh Moo Hyun Group. The prosecution indicted former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae in arrest in September last year for attempted coercion under the criminal law. However, whether or not to collude with one of the prosecutors’ offices was removed from the complaint. It was not possible to disclose the conspiracy relationship.
Prosecutor Lee, a party to suspicion that investigations against the regime, such as the Channel A case, are being crushed one after another, is currently in a very narrow position. Chairman Yoo apologized on the 22nd, saying, “I believe it was not true,” for the’prosecutor’s suspicion of accessing the foundation account’ raised against a prosecutor.
Reporters Kang Kwang-woo and Jung Yu-jin [email protected]