‘Soon after the start of business, prosecute (Chief Kang-wook, Secretary of Public Service of the Blue House), and report to the Ministry of Justice through the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office.’
January 23, 2020 @ 8:55am. Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol directly gave the above instructions to the investigation team of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office. Lee Seong-yoon’passed’ the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office.
18 minutes later, District Attorney Seong-yoon Lee, who encountered this fact, immediately rebelled. “(Secretary Secretary Choi Kang-wook) on the same day is difficult to accept the reason or legitimacy and objection. Please reconsider.”
However, after 17 minutes, the chief prosecutor’s note became colorless. This is because, at around 9:30 am, the investigation team directly submitted the complaint of Rep. Choi to the court under the direction of President Yoon. This incident that led to the so-called’Lee Seong-yoon passing’. What happened to the prosecution on the day when the prosecution of Choi Kang-wook’s secretary (currently the representative of the Open Democratic Party) was made?
The full word of’Lee Seong-yoon Passing’ in the sentence of Choi Kang-wook judgment
Representative Choi Kang-wook was handed over to trial on charges of interfering with the university’s admissions affairs by forging the internship confirmation of the son of former Justice Minister Cho Kook, and was sentenced to loss of a parliamentary position of eight months in prison and two years probation at the first trial on the 29th. (Related article: Choi Kang-wook’lost councilor’s office’… Court “forged the fatherland son’s intern confirmation”) The ruling contained the conflict between Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol and District Prosecutor General Lee Seong-yoon that occurred during the prosecution. The contents of the judgment are based on the’Prosecutor’s Office Report’ submitted to the court by the Ministry of Justice.
At the time, CEO Kang-wook Choi refused to comply with the three prosecution requests for attendance. With this, the positions between President Yun and Chief Prosecutor Lee were divided. On January 22 of last year (2020), General Yoon instructed the investigation team to “prosecute Assemblyman Choi immediately because there is no further benefit in the summons request”, while Chief Prosecutor Lee said, “It is considerable that you give enough opportunity to call in the investigation procedure. He instructed the investigation team to do a summons investigation.”
The investigative team rebelled against the order of the Chief Prosecutor. At that time, Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office 3rd Deputy Prosecutor Song Gyeong-ho and Ko Hyeong-gon, 2nd anti-corruption investigation director, protested, “The defendant did not appear three times, but the request for further attendance is meaningless.”
Conflict arose even more on the 23rd, the next day. The investigation team clearly stated their intention to submit a complaint to the Prosecutor General, saying, “If the order of the prosecutor general is not illegal, you must follow it.” In this regard, Prosecutor General Lee drew a line saying, “Under the Prosecutor’s Office Act, the prosecutor general must command and supervise the prosecutor only through the prosecutor’s office.”
The conclusion was’Let’s pass by the prosecutor’s office. On the 23rd, at 9:30 am, the investigation team submitted a complaint to the court under the direction of President Yoon, “Prosecution immediately after commencement of business”.
Investigation Prosecutor, Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon blatantly criticized
There are some differences between the contents of the’Prosecutor’s Office Report’ submitted to the court by the Ministry of Justice as to whether Yun ordered’unconditionally prosecute today’ and the facts revealed by the trial prosecutor in this case. According to the ruling, the trial prosecutor said, “The allegation that the Prosecutor General repeatedly ordered’unconditionally prosecution’ is a distortion of the facts” and “(data submitted to the court by the Ministry of Justice) unilaterally excerpt and distorted the case reporting process. Criticized that it was written.”
The prosecutor said, “The Prosecutor General clearly instructed the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office to prosecute the accused immediately,” and said, “Even though the order was not illegal or unfair, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office violated this. It was decided that it was first, and it led to the prosecution of this case.”
The details of the investigation team’s opposition to Prosecutor Lee were also mentioned. The prosecutor said, “(Prosecutor Lee) did not disclose opinions such as a summons investigation or supplementary investigation for a while, but when it was expected to change the investigation team to an intermediary executive, he suddenly raised the need for a summons investigation and delayed the approval.” The investigation team completed preparations for the prosecution on January 9, 2020, and reported the relevant information to the Prosecutor Lee on January 14 of the same year, which explains that the Prosecutor Lee did not disclose any position until then.
The prosecutor also blatantly criticized this prosecutor. Below is the position of the prosecutor stated in the judgment.
“The investigation team refused to comply with the request for attendance several times, but rather, in the light of the fact that the media claim that the intern certificate of Mr. Cho (the son of former Minister Cho) was manipulated and intimidated by the prosecution, even though it was issued normally, the reconciliation of the summoning schedule is meaningless In turn, he reported to the prosecutor’s office. (But) the prosecutor insisted on a summons investigation, even saying that he would adjust his attendance schedule by himself.”
Court “direct command of the prosecutor general, it is not illegal”
|
View larger picture |
|
| ▲ On the morning of the 28th, Kang-wook Choi, the head of the Open Democratic Party, is expressing his position after being sentenced to two years of probation in August of imprisonment for falsely writing the internship confirmation of Cho Kook’s son in the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. | |
| Ⓒ Lee Hee-hoon |
View related photos |
CEO Kang-wook Choi argued that it was illegal, such as infringing on the commanding and supervision of the Prosecutor’s Office, because the prosecution against him in court was carried out under the direct command of the Prosecutor General Yoon, not through the Prosecutor General.
The court finally raised the hands of President Yoon and the investigation team. The court said, “In this case, even if the Prosecutor General directly directed the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office or the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, it cannot be considered a violation of the Prosecutors’ Office Act.”
In addition, the judge said, “The reason that the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office ordered the investigation team to withhold the prosecution is that the accused needs to be subpoenaed, but Rep. Choi did not appear to the prosecution even after receiving several summons.” In the process of filing, the prosecution cannot be considered as having any real disadvantages to the accused because he commanded the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office or his investigation team.”
In addition, the judge said, “It is difficult to say that the defendant was not able to submit favorable arguments or evidence because he did not receive an investigation of the suspect during the investigation stage.” “The judgment was also added.