Senior Reporter Seong Han-yong’s Politics After the End 366
Seok-yeol Yoon insists on “a meaningful role in removing privileges”
Political prosecution-corruption prosecutors’ black history even after the civil government
Park Geun-hye government’Choi Soon-sil Gukjeong Nongdan’ close your eyes knowing
In the case of the Lee Myung-bak administration, court mediation was prosecuted for negligence.
It is worth reviewing the placement of investigative prosecutors at the Severe Crime Investigation Office.
material photo” alt=”Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. <한겨레> Base photo
On March 2, I read the interview with Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, which was published from page 1 to page 4. The impression I received was that “Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol is also a prosecutor.” Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol said only one word about the prosecution’s fault. “Of course, there have been mistakes with the prosecution.” The content of the interview other than that was that “the prosecution is doing well” from start to finish.
“I think the anti-corruption activities of the prosecution after the Civil Government have played a significant role in removing the privileges of our society and allowing the people to experience democracy in their lives.” “I think that regardless of the government that advocates progress or the government that advocates conservative, it has given me the recognition that’If you do wrong, even the powerful will be punished.’” “There have been cases in which innocence was convicted because it was difficult to prove when the way of crime was changed from the classic to the new one.”
In the meantime, there has been no reflection on the prosecution overlooking the crimes of vested powers or the crimes of corrupt prosecutors. There was no reflection on the’convicts’ that resulted in countless unjust victims through unreasonable’contract investigation’, unreasonable’contract arrest’ and unreasonable’contract prosecution’ according to the orders of political power. In simple terms, it is argued that he and the prosecution were’the apostles of justice’. Really? Because it is different from the facts, we cannot but refute it. Since Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol himself presented a point of view that was’after the civil government’, I will not be concerned with what kind of crime the prosecutor’s head of prosecutors and some political prosecutors committed in the dictatorship of Syngman Rhee and Park Jeong-hee and Doo-Hwan Chun as the’lord of dictatorship’. No, I will not repeat what the prosecution heads and some political prosecutors did to succeed in the Roh Tae-woo administration, which was called the’Prosecutor’s Republic.’ However, I think it is necessary to remind us of what the prosecution heads and some political prosecutors did until recently after the civil government, and why the prosecution emerged as’the 1st eradication of redemption’ during the 2016-2017 candlelight revolution. This is because there is absolutely no way to go over it with a single word,’Of course, there have been mistakes with the prosecutors’.
There is a book published in September 2017 by Kim In-hoe, a professor at Inha University Law School. It has a subtitle that says,’There is no democracy without the prosecution reform’. This is the sequel to 2011. Park Geun-hye summarized the black history of the prosecution during the days of President Lee Myung-bak. I will only quote a few important points.
“In the case of Park Geun-hye and Choi Soon-sil, Gukjeong Nongdan, which broke out in October 2016, the public reaffirmed the reality of the prosecution. Political prosecutors and corruption prosecutors’ behavior has expanded to the extreme, and political prosecutors took control of the Republic of Korea, and corruption prosecutors became a symbol of Korean corruption. Former President Park Geun-hye and Choi Soon-sil took control of the entire administration by taking control of the prosecution. The forces of Gukjeong Nongdan took control of the prosecution along with political prosecutors Kim Ki-chun and Woo Byeong-woo. Based on the prosecution’s control, they used the government like a private organization.” “Political prosecution was at the core of the mechanism that directly or indirectly intervened in the illegal and criminal activities of numerous public officials. Political prosecutors condone illegal acts and criminal acts, and even committed illegal acts directly. This protected and promoted criminal activity.” “The prosecution has been aware of the state affairs of Nongdan of Park Geun-hye and Choi Soon-sil from a long time ago. It is because there was a case of Jeong Yoon-hoe before the case of Choi Soon-sil.” “The Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office on January 5, 2015, said that the’Jung Yoon-hoe document’ is false based on the information magazine of a securities company, and it is assumed that Park Gwan-cheon and Jo Eung-cheon tried to reinforce their position using Park Man-man. Inspector Han Mo, who participated in, announced that he would be prosecuted without custody. The prosecution covered the foreshadowing of the Gukjeong Nongdan crisis with power.”
“Special Inspector Lee Seok-soo, who was faithful to his duty, began investigating Woo Byung-woo on July 22, 2016. At that time, it was a response to the corruption of Woo Byung-woo. On August 18, Special Inspector Lee Seok-soo commissioned a prosecutor’s investigation into Woo Byung-woo.” “The prosecution confiscated and searched the special prosecutor’s office on August 29, while investigating the special prosecutor Lee Seok-soo. Special Inspector Lee Seok-soo submits his resignation, and the resignation will be accepted on September 23, 2016.”
“Hong Man-pyo investigated President Roh Moo-hyun under the command of Lee In-gyu as the investigative planner of the Central Investigation Department of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office during the Lee Myung-bak administration in 2009. At that time, he caused many problems by conducting an unreasonable investigation, including the public announcement of the accusation. The investigation was ended with the death of President Roh Moo-hyun.” “Hong Man-pyo was arrested on June 2, 2016 on charges of violating the Lawyers Act and evading taxation under the Certain Criminal Weighted Penalty Act.” “Attorney Man-pyo Hong’s corruption was a case that clearly showed the level of ethics of the political prosecution.”
“There was always suspicion on Jin Kyung-jun’s property. Nevertheless, Jin Gyeong-jun had no restrictions on being promoted to the prosecutor’s office. This is because Woo Byung-woo was in control of the civil jeong chief’s room that had to be verified.”
“The prosecution of the Park Geun-hye administration is summarized as a political prosecutor and a corrupt prosecution. Two faces that look different from each other actually come from one root. Its roots are super concentrated and powerful authority. As far as criminal justice is concerned, the prosecution has the power to handle cases without anyone’s checks. It is the result of the monopoly of the right to investigate, the monopoly of prosecution, and the convenience of prosecution.” “Because of this authority, the political power used the prosecution, and in return, the prosecution became part of the political power. The prosecutors who had collusion with political power became political prosecutors and ruled the country.”
“The restoration of the political prosecution and abuse of prosecution power began with the investigation of President Roh Moo-hyun. Punishing political opponents as criminal or political criminals is a typical technique of political prosecution. The prosecution started an investigation against President Roh Moo-hyun in 2009, with the help of the investigation of corruption in Park Yeon-cha. In the course of the investigation, the prosecution disclosed the allegations to the media as if they were broadcasting.” “What the political prosecutors aimed at in the investigation of President Roh Moo-hyun was a trial before the trial and a public opinion trial. Through a public opinion trial, President Roh Moo-hyun and the democratic forces were driven as unscrupulous criminals, and they tried to make them unrecoverable.”
“The prosecution prosecuted President Jeong Yeon-ju’s agreement with negligence. It is said that it inflicted a loss of 189.2 billion won, which was not refunded by the National Tax Service. This case cannot be a crime. How could a decision made through a court’s recommendation for mediation, a review by a law firm, and a resolution by a management meeting could be an act of betrayal? If President Jeong Yeon-ju is relegated, will the court of appeals and the lawyer who recommended mediation become a teacher offender?”
“The Lee Myung-bak administration was in crisis due to the candlelight protests, and in order to break through it, the production team investigated and prosecuted the production team for defamation and business obstruction caused by the spread of false information. It was intended to break through the change of the government through investigation and trial. As prosecutor Lim Soo-bin said, the prosecution was unreasonable, knowing that defamation was not established. This is a typical example of the political exercise of the right to investigate and the right to prosecute.”
“The prosecution investigated, imprisoned, and prosecuted Minerva, because the article of an Internet commentator criticized the government. The allegation was a violation of the Framework Act on Telecommunications. Specifically, it corresponds to’a person who performed false communication through telecommunication facilities for the purpose of harming the public interest’. Punishment using this law was the first since the enactment of the law in 1961.”
Professor Kim In-hoe mainly recorded the’black history’ committed by the prosecution during the Park Geun-hye administration and the Lee Myung-bak administration. Then, what about the prosecution in the Kim Young-sam administration, the Kim Dae-jung administration, and the Roh Moo-hyun administration? As Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol said, did it play a meaningful role in removing the privileges of Korean society and allowing people to experience democracy in their lives? Would it have instilled in the perception of’progressive governments or conservative governments that if they do wrong, even the powerful will be punished’? “We are dogs. If it is water, it bites, and if it is not, it will not bite.” Have you ever heard of something like this? During the Kim Young-sam administration, prosecutors who were critical of the behavior of the prosecutor’s head who were strictly subordinate to the political power were self-helpful. In the Kim Young-sam administration, the prosecution decided that the coup case of former President Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo was “no prosecution rights” based on the logic that “a successful coup cannot be punished”. However, when the atmosphere changed, with Rep. Park Gye-dong exposed the suspicion of Roh Tae-woo’s slush fund and President Kim Young-sam ordered the enactment of the May 18 Special Act, the Special Investigation Headquarters was activated and a quick re-investigation took place. Former President Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo were arrested. This is the background of the lament of “we are dogs”. There was also something like this. In 1993, after the inauguration of the Kim Young-sam administration, the prosecution indicted former Pohang Steelmaker Park Tae-joon, a political rival of President Kim Young-sam. It was charged with receiving billions of won from Pohang Steel’s affiliates and partners. Former Chairman Park Tae-joon, who was being tried under arrest, was released in 1995. The Blue House announced that it was a’special pardon’ from President Kim Young-sam. I wasn’t. The special pardon was legally impossible. This is because the older brother was not confirmed. How did it happen? The prosecution canceled the prosecution against Chairman Park Tae-joon. I seldom heard before or after that the prosecution filed a prosecution and canceled it. Likewise, the prosecution was strictly subordinate to political power during the Kim Young-sam administration as well as during the Noh Tae-woo administration of Chun Doo-hwan. It was after the case of Kim Hyun-cheol, the son of President Kim Young-sam, that the prosecution ran into political power at the end of the presidential term. In the Kim Dae-jung administration, prosecutors from Honam were fighting for power, and in the Roh Moo-hyun administration, the nerve war between political power and the prosecution power continued for five years. After the Civilian Government, the prosecution’played a meaningful role in removing the privileges of Korean society and allowing people to experience democracy in their lives’, or’if a government advocates progress or a government advocates conservative, if they make a mistake, This is why I cannot agree at all with Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol’s statement that it has instilled an awareness that even powerful people are punished. Fortunately, the criticism that’the prosecution’s power is too strong’ is that Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol also said that he would accept the criticism. In a telephone interview with Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol on the 2nd, he said, “It is okay to have it under the Minister of Justice, so we must establish an anti-corruption investigation office, a financial investigation office, and a security office with the right to investigate and prosecute, and maintain and strengthen our capacity to investigate serious crimes” Presented.
I have two questions. First, whether the whole prosecution organization and prosecutors can accept the alternative’split’ by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. If the entire prosecution agrees, it is worth considering how to divide the prosecution’s powers into areas according to the proposal of President Yoon Suk-yeol. Until now, the prosecution’s’barrage and tyranny’ was possible because some prosecutors held the right to investigate all fields in one hand and wielded’target investigation’ and’separate case investigation’ at will. If you are against splitting the prosecution’s power vertically, she says, you can also consider splitting it horizontally. Second, whether or not the prosecution can really give up the command of the prosecutor general. If the Anti-Corruption Investigation Office is established under the Minister of Justice, special investigations by the prosecution will be conducted by the head of the Anti-Corruption Investigation Office, not the prosecutor general. The Prosecutor General is destined to be a’Prosecutor’s Officer’ because he has a protective instinct for the entire prosecution organization. If the prosecutor general can be excluded from the prosecution’s anti-corruption investigation, I think it is worth considering this type of dispersal of prosecution power. In that respect, how about putting a prosecutor at the Great Crimes Investigation Office under consideration by the Democratic Party altogether? Just as the high-ranking officials criminal investigation office has a separate prosecutor, the Severe Crime Investigation Office has a separate prosecutor. If you can do that, you can send all the prosecutors and investigators who are currently in charge of the investigation directly to the Severe Crime Investigation Office. This is included in the prosecution reform pledge made by Barun Party candidate Yoo Seung-min during the 2017 presidential election.
* Separation of the right of investigation and the right of prosecution by the establishment of the investigation office-The third agency, the Investigation Office, is responsible for the investigation by separating the prosecution’s right to investigate and the right to prosecute-The investigation office consists of a prosecutor (prosecutor and prosecutor investigator) and an investigative police officer.
One issue is whether to give prosecution rights to prosecutors from the Severe Crime Investigations Agency. Candidate Seung-min Yoo’s pledge is focused on separating the right to investigate and to prosecute. Therefore, the investigation agency prosecutor should be viewed as not having the right to prosecute. It is different from the proposal of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. What should I do? I think this is a matter of political decision after a debate at the level of criminal policy in the legislature. It is not that the opposition of the prosecutor general or prosecutors is important, but it is much more important to establish a democratic system by decentralizing the powers of the prosecution without weakening the anti-corruption capacity of our society. I’ll wrap it up. It is argued that if the prosecution’s direct investigation is taken, the Moon Jae-in administration or the Democratic Party people will not be able to investigate crimes committed. This is a claim that looks at the level of Korea too much. If the Moon Jae-in government or the people of the Democratic Party together have committed a crime, there is no way to avoid responsibility. Even if the prosecution does not investigate directly, whether it is the airlift, the serious criminal investigation office, or the police, it will investigate more thoroughly. After the civilian government, there is a certain pattern in which the prosecutors deal with political power. It is to avoid the blade of the prosecution reform in the name of digging into the corruption of the previous regime in the early days of the regime and gaining the confidence of the government. It is a fact that the people who served in the Blue House of Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye government and former and current lawmakers of the People’s Strength also acknowledge it. In that respect, it can be said that the power of the prosecution lies above the political power. It means that the saying,’Political power is finite, but prosecution power is forever’ may be true. Isn’t it a bit terrible? Senior Reporter Seong Han-yong [email protected]