General Society: Society: News: Hankyoreh

Mr. A, an employee of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, was enlisted in the police in 2016. He is accused of grabbing and assaulting his opponent for hijacking a taxi. Mr. A agreed with the victim and was sentenced to’no public prosecution’, but the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office did not demand a disciplinary decision from the competent disciplinary committee. This is because he was awarded the prosecutor general’s citation in the past. In the’Guidelines for dealing with crimes and misconduct of public prosecutors’, even if the case is closed because there is no right of prosecution, if the allegation is admitted, it is stipulated to be disciplined with’reprimand’ or’reduction’. Three public prosecutors belonging to the Jeonju District Prosecutors’ Office, Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office, and Uijeongbu District Prosecutors’ Office were also charged with assault from 2016 to 2019, but received only their own caution or warning. It was revealed that the audit result revealed that the prosecution did not discipline employees who were charged with assault, or applied their own standards to employees who drunk and drove, and disciplined them with a’cotton bat’. In a report on the regular audit of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office released on the 18th, it was confirmed that employees who were assaulted or drunk and drunk were punished less than the regulations. In particular, a case in which the prosecution’s own disciplinary standards are lighter than the enforcement regulations of the disciplinary decree for public officials was revealed through this audit. If a public official at the prosecution receives a gift or entertainment of less than 1 million won, it must be disciplined with’reduction or dismissal’ as an enforcement rule, but it is a’reprimand or suspension’ as a guideline for the prosecution. In 2018, two investigators from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office and Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office, who received 600,000 won worth of golf entertainment unrelated to their job duties, had to receive more than a reduction in salary, but a typical case was that the Supreme Prosecutors applied their own standards to reprimand them. There have also been cases of reductions without good cause. For example, Mr. B, an employee of the Daegu District Prosecutor’s Office, Pohang District Office, was caught while driving under the influence of 0.094% blood alcohol (the level of license revoked) in 2019, but the Supreme Prosecutors’ Disciplinary Committee only gave him two months of disciplinary punishment. The Pohang branch demanded severe disciplinary action, but the Great Swordsman dismissed him and his family for taking into account the facts of the fight against the soldiers. The Board of Audit and Inspection also discovered that the revocation of the medical license was delayed or not fulfilled because the prosecution did not notify the approval or permission in time. The Supreme Prosecutor’s’Guidelines for Notification of Crimes Related to Permits and Permits’ stipulated that if a person who has obtained a license from an administrative office commits a crime corresponding to the reason for revocation or suspension of the license, and the sentence is confirmed, the competent authority is notified of the results of the trial. However, as a result of confirming 65 medical personnel who were convicted of imprisonment or higher for violating the medical law from 2017 to April 2020, the prosecution did not notify the Ministry of Health and Welfare of the results of the trial, so 10 were revoked after a long period of time, and 5 were licensed. It was in business without cancellation. The Board of Audit and Inspection demanded attention from the prosecutors or heads of nine district prosecutors’ offices, including the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office. In addition, it was notified that the important economic crime investigation team operated by 16 district prosecutors nationwide and the prosecutor’s office of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office would be abolished or converted to a formal organization through consultation with the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, as it is a temporary organization that is not in the official regulations of the Prosecutors’ Office. In addition, it was revealed that monthly expenses for the prosecutor general and the prosecutor’s office were organized at the level of the minister and vice-minister than the regulations. By Bae Bae-hyun, staff reporter