Justice Department Prosecutor Ryu Hyuk is giving a briefing on the case of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook at the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office on the 17th. Photo co-recruitment group
On the 17th, Justice Minister Park Beom-gye invoked the investigation command authority and ordered a re-investigation with regard to the disposition of the great prosecutor’s charge in the case of the mother-in-law Han Myung-suk, “the prosecutor-general’s acting representative should hold a meeting of the chief prosecutor’s office to deliberate on the possibility of prosecution.” The reason is that the Great Swordsman said, “It is difficult to say that they did their best to find the true truth of the case, and even the appropriateness of the conclusion is being questioned.” It was raised last year when witnesses and other prosecutors asked the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution for inspection, saying that they practiced false testimony led by prosecutors.
It is difficult to rule out the possibility that the’perjury practice’ is true even if the statements related to the case are somewhat mixed, as it is a request for multiple inspections that includes the core witnesses of the trial. It is unclear that this case, which was first undertaken by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, was suddenly transferred to the Ministry of Human Rights under the direction of the Prosecutor General. It is not to be overlooked that Prosecutor Lim Eun-jung, who has looked into the case since September of last year as a human rights researcher at the Ministry of Investigation, strongly opposed the disposition of charges.
However, there is no reason to predict that the judgment of the great swordsman that it has gone through the process of “reasonable decision making” is unreasonable. The prosecution did not specifically disclose the reason for the disposition, but it was said that it was not the case to be prosecuted as a result of having six researchers of the great sword review the records. At the time, a member of the investigation team also claimed that there was no problem in the investigation process at the time, saying that the new testimony was “a clear false claim contrary to the objective facts.”
In order to ensure the prosecution’s investigation neutrality, the Minister of Justice’s investigation and command should be exercised in moderation. However, in a situation where the arguments are mixed and even inside the prosecution, voices saying that the disposition of acquittal is unfair, it is inevitable to reveal the truth through an objective investigation. If there is nothing really a problem, the prosecution is reasonable to accept it in order to be free from the criticism that it is’covering my family’. As the statute of limitations is short, we must not create a new spark of conflict between the Ministry of Justice and the Prosecutors’ Office by ending the controversy with a quick and transparent re-examination.
News directly edited by the Hankook Ilbo can also be viewed on Naver.
