The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office on December 9, 2020. News 1
The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office on the 5th, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, on the suspicion of a coercive investigation and perjury teacher by the prosecutor’s investigation team,’receiving political funds from former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook’. In the process, it was found that there were not only prosecutors from the Prosecutors’ Section 3, who investigated the suspicion, but also six prosecution researchers who were not related to the prosecution service. It is said that only the prosecution policy researcher Lim Eun-jeong gave the opinion of the prosecution.
Im Eun-jung opposes even the majority of the surveillance team “no charge”
Summarizing the coverage of the JoongAng Ilbo on the 10th, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office gathered opinions on the direction of the case from prosecutors from the Prosecutors’ Section 3, the Prosecutors’ Office of Prosecutors’ Office of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, Eun-jeong Lim, and officials from the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office. Only Researcher Lim gave an opinion that “they should be prosecuted after switching to an investigation”, and the rest of the prosecutors expressed no charge.
Afterwards, the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office showed all opinions to six prosecutors at the prosecution level who were not related to the case and asked, “What kind of opinion is correct?” This is a measure that was taken because the backlash from Researcher Lim, who had a few opinions, was great. Researcher Lim also suspected that “colleague prosecutors seem to be covering my family.”
Eventually, the opinions of the prosecutors and unrelated prosecutors were collected.
The judgment of all six prosecution researchers in neutral positions was also not suspicious. They agreed with the majority opinion that “the evidence is insufficient due to the death of Man-ho Han, the main reference person, in a situation where it is necessary to rely on the statements of fellow inmates who raise the suspicion.” Han died in 2018 after being released as a donor who handed illegal political funds to former Prime Minister Han.
Im Eun-jeong, inspector of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, Prosecutors’ Office. yunhap news
Great Swordsman proposes a discussion, but Im Eun-jung refuses
The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office suggested that the six prosecutors have a discussion with Researcher Lim when making a decision, but Researcher Lim refused. In response, one prosecution officer criticized, “Im researcher can make a different opinion from almost all legal experts in the prosecution, but it is incomprehensible that he even refuses to discuss it.”
Deputy General Cho Nam-gwan is judged not to be accused of → disposition
Prosecutor General Cho Nam-gwan, who watched the judgment of the six prosecutors at the prosecutor’s office, also judged that the innocence was correct, and the final innocence was imposed. The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office said on the 5th, “We judged that there was insufficient evidence to admit the charges through a reasonable decision-making process.”
However, on the day of the disposition, Researcher Lim protested that “the decision-making process was irrational” through his Facebook account. Researcher Lim did not respond to the JoongAng Ilbo request to clarify the specific reason why the decision-making was irrational. He said, “If I have something to tell, I will go through SNS.”
After Researcher Lim’s opposition, Justice Minister Park Beom-gye stepped up. It is known that he expressed regret to the great swordsman who had been dismissed from charges, and is considering whether to activate the investigation and command authority to resume inspection.
Great Swordsman, Researcher Lim reviewed the summary of the opinion
As the controversy continued, it was reported that the Supreme Prosecutors held a deliberation committee to disclose the criminal case to disclose the points of the prosecution opinion of Researcher Lim and the non-prosecution opinions of the rest of the prosecutors. The intention is to end the controversy by letting the whole people judge.
On the other hand, researcher Lim posted the opinion of the prosecution on Facebook on the 4th, the day before the acquittal, and was accused of leaking secrets for public affairs by a civic group. According to a 2007 Supreme Court precedent, information such as what opinions the investigating officer held during the prosecution’s investigation is a secret inside the investigative agency that should not be leaked.
Regarding this, Researcher Lim said through Facebook, “It was only for the purpose of responding to misinformation spilled,” and “I do not care about articles about leaking public service secrets at all.”
Reporter Minjoong Kim [email protected]
