“Kim Hak’s emergency withdrawal is impossible” even in the report on the defense against the law of Gyu-geun Cha

It was found that the Immigration and Foreigners Policy Headquarters of the Ministry of Justice, led by Director Cha Gyu-geun, wrote a defense report on the illegality two days after the emergency ban on departure (withdrawal) of former Deputy Minister of Justice Kim Hak-eui on March 23, 2019. In the report at the time, the Immigration Headquarters saw that prosecutor Lee Gyu-won, 43, who was dispatched by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s Past Photographic Investigation Team, found it difficult to be the subject of urgent withdrawal requests, and decided that there would be a legal controversy under the Immigration Control Act, which limited the subject of emergency withdrawal to’criminal suspects’.

At the request of this prosecutor, even the immigration headquarters of the Ministry of Justice, the party who enforced the emergency ban on departure from former Vice Minister Kim, decided that the measures were illegal.

However, the head of the Immigration Headquarters Cha Gyu-geun was the person who approved the request for approval after the emergency withdrawal that included the ghost internal case number in this internal report. The head of the immigration policy officer, who was in the approval line at the time, refused the approval until the end.

The 106-page public interest report of the National Rights Commission of Korea, obtained by JoongAng Ilbo on the 14th, was prepared by Mr. A, an executive at the Immigration Division at the Immigration Headquarters, as evidence, entitled “Emergency Withdrawal Report of Former Vice Minister Kim,” written on March 25, 2019, two days after the emergency withdrawal measures. The original text of the report is attached intact.

In the report, Mr. A summarized the personal information of former Vice Minister Kim and the progress of the emergency withdrawal on one page, and then summarized the legal issues on three separate pages in a question and answer format. At the time, it was questioned whether ▶Can Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won request an emergency withdrawal from the Supreme Checkup Fact Investigation Team and dispatched ▶Was Vice Minister Kim can be eligible for emergency withdrawal under the Immigration Control Act.

First of all, in the report, only the’investigative agency’ can request an emergency withdrawal, and it was reviewed whether the great examination fact-finding team to which this prosecutor was dispatched could be regarded as an investigative agency. Mr. A said in the report “Since it is difficult to see the Great Checkup Fact-Investigation Team as an official investigation agency, it is impossible to withdraw money under the sole name of the Fact-Investigation Team.He said, “It is necessary to have the name of the head of an official investigative agency, such as the Great Swordsman or the Seoul East District Prosecutors’ Office.”

The problem is that both the urgent withdrawal request and the approval request were requests for emergency withdrawal of dispatched prosecutors who did not receive approval without the official seal of the head of the investigating agency at the time.

The report said, “At the first request, the prosecutor in charge (Prosecutor Lee) stated his title as acting representative of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office, and three hours later, when an emergency withdrawal approval was requested, the name was changed from the’Dongbu District Prosecutors’ “In consideration of the urgent situation, It can be argued that it is a legitimate measure for a case that was actually concurrently conducted by the fact-finding team and the Dongbu District Prosecutor’s Office due to a simple procedural defect.“Also suggested some kind of defense logic.

Two years after this defense logic, the Ministry of Justice said on the 12th, “The prosecutor belonging to the past fact investigation team corresponds to the’investigation agency’ that was ordered as a prosecutor for the Seoul East District District Prosecutor’s Office, so it has the authority to grant internal investigation and internal company numbers, and request an emergency ban on departure.” Insisted.

The second issue with regard to the subject of emergency withdrawal is whether the’investigative agency’ can request an emergency withdrawal in the Immigration Control Act, but if the’head of the investigating agency’ is possible in the emergency withdrawal procedure of the Enforcement Decree (Presidential Decree), whether it is possible to make an emergency withdrawal by the investigating agency alone. Whether it was.

As for the review result, only the’head of the investigative agency’ can request an emergency withdrawal.Was. Mr. A wrote, “As long as the enforcement decree procedurally restricts the subject to’the head of the investigative agency’, it is impossible to apply for an investigative agency alone.” therefore “In fact, if all the investigative agencies are authorized to apply, it is in effect to allow individual prosecutors who operate as independent agencies to apply for withdrawal independently, and unlike the case of the head of the investigating agency, the internal self-cleaning function of the investigating agency cannot be expected.“He added.

The Ministry of Justice also looked into whether former Vice Minister Kim could be eligible for emergency withdrawal. In the prosecutor’s initial request, the issue was whether the action taken based on the case number of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office in 2013 was legal.

Mr. A said “Emergency ban on departure due to cases in which past allegations have been confirmed can be difficultBut ▶ From the point of view of immigration officials, it was not possible to know immediately whether the case was closed by looking at the criminal case number. ▶ The Ministry of Justice indicated that there is a possibility of a re-investigation if necessary in the National Assembly questionnaire ▶ Closed without charge He concluded that it was “legitimate,” referring to the fact that the prosecution, who had the authority to issue a reconsideration order, directly requested an emergency withdrawal.

It is not that prosecutor Gyu-won Lee’s request was legitimate, but that the actions of the immigration headquarters staff who executed the emergency withdrawal of former Vice Minister Kim at the request of the prosecutor were legitimate.

Urgent withdrawal is only possible for’criminal suspects’, but we also considered whether former Vice Minister Kim, who was the subject of investigation at the time, could be viewed as a suspect. It was also concluded that “from the standpoint of immigration officials, former Vice Minister Kim can be viewed as a crime suspect in a broad sense.”

Mr. A said “From the perspective of immigration officials, the criminal case number (actually innocent case) had to be judged as a suspect, and from the perspective of an administrative agency, which is a non-investigative agency, the internal investigation was also seen as part of the investigation, so it is meaningless to distinguish between the victim and the suspect. Difficult to judge“The subject of a similar withdrawal system should be considered as’persons recognized as inappropriate for departing for criminal investigations’ and taking into account the inclusion of victims,” he said.

but “Contrary to general withdrawal targets, urgent withdrawal targets are’criminal suspects’, and considering the purpose of the law, emergency withdrawals are not explicitly excluded, so it is possible to debate the law in this area in the future.It is expected to do,” he added.

Reporter Kang Kwangwoo [email protected]