사법의 칼날, 누구를 향하는가: 검찰 인사권과 상소 제도를 둘러싼 격랑 > K-wave Trends

The Seoul Administrative Court recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a suit filed by Chief Prosecutor Jeong Yu-mi against the Minister of Justice to cancel a personnel order, and ruled that the Ministry of Justice's disposition was illegal. In December last year, the Ministry of Justice transferred Chief Prosecutor Jeong, who had strongly criticized the decision to abandon the appeal of the Daejang-dong case and the issue of the prosecution's political neutrality, from a research fellow at the Legal Research and Training Institute to a prosecutor at the Daejeon High Prosecutors' Office. The court pointed out that this appointment was a highly unusual measure that significantly deviated from the normal personnel practices within the prosecution, and viewed it as a retaliatory appointment to induce Prosecutor Jeong to resign voluntarily. In particular, the court took issue with the abuse of personnel discretion and imposed intrusive measures without going through disciplinary procedures, and severely criticized the procedural defects of not even providing the minimum opportunity for explanation.

The background to Prosecutor Jeong's personnel disposition also included suspicions of poor investigation of the 'Myeong Tae-gyun nomination intervention case' that occurred during his time as Changwon District Prosecutors' Office. However, the court rejected the Ministry of Justice's argument, saying that it is difficult to say that the poor investigation was objectively proven based solely on suspicions raised in media reports or government audits. However, the court acknowledged that some of Prosecutor General Jeong's posts on the prosecution's internal network, 'Epros', contained radical expressions and were likely to incite political controversy, but deemed this insufficient to serve as an appropriate basis for personnel action. As a result, the court sounded the alarm on attempts to neutralize critical voices within the prosecution organization by clarifying that although the legal interpretation of whether or not to demotion was different, the purpose and procedural legitimacy of the exercise of personnel rights were lacking.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office is seeking to revise its guidelines to significantly limit prosecutors' right to appeal, reflecting President Lee Jae-myung's instructions. In the current system, it is customary for the prosecution to appeal even if acquitted in the first trial, but in the future, the plan is to filter out indiscriminate appeals by having them go through deliberation by the 'Appellate Review Committee'. Although this is intended to reduce the suffering of indicted defendants and reduce unnecessary judicial costs, there are strong voices of concern among front-line prosecutors. From the victim's perspective, it is pointed out that if the authority of the prosecutor in charge of maintaining the indictment is excessively reduced, judicial remedies may be virtually blocked when an unfair victim occurs. In particular, in a situation where the abolition of the Prosecutor's Office and the decline in the ability to maintain prosecution go hand in hand, there is strong criticism that these restrictions will accelerate the incapacitation of the prosecution.

On the other hand, controversy continues over the case of former prosecutor Lee Gyu-won, who was confirmed to receive a suspended fine on charges of writing false interview results in relation to the 'Kim Hak-eui case'. Immediately after the trial, former prosecutor Lee disobeyed the ruling and announced a constitutional appeal, and called for an active investigation by the Corruption Investigation Office to restore his reputation. As such, the prosecution is experiencing extreme confusion as interests surrounding personnel rights, investigative rights, and the appellate system are complexly intertwined. In the current situation, where the first-trial acquittal rate statistically exceeds 1%, how to harmonize the two values ​​of strengthening the prosecution's investigative capacity and guaranteeing the defendant's right to defense remains a difficult issue that the judiciary and the executive branch must solve together.