Prosecutor Park Sang-yong Criticizes, “Political Sphere’s Attempt to Avoid Judicial Risks Threatens Rule of Law in Korea”

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong pointed out that the pardon of former Gyeonggi Peace Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young is clearly linked to the dismissal of charges. He stated that even if charges are dismissed, there is a possibility of re-indictment if the government changes, and current moves appear to be aimed at removing judicial risks for the political sphere.

He interpreted this as an attempt to neutralize the prosecution and allow politicians to evade their judicial responsibilities, emphasizing that such actions are serious problems that undermine the rule of law.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong stressed that all National Assembly members, as constitutional organs and guardians of the Constitution, must clearly limit and curb the President's remarks. He argued that it is the inherent duty of lawmakers to go beyond simply conveying the President's message, to evaluate the appropriateness of such remarks, and to curb them if necessary.

He expressed concern that if lawmakers fail to properly perform this role, the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers could be shaken, urging them to play a more active role.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong conveyed that Professor Lee Sang-won of Seoul National University strongly criticized the current prosecution reform bill, especially the one aiming to abolish supplementary investigation powers. Professor Lee compared it to 'cutting off the patient's head when the right arm is rotting,' pointing out that eliminating the prosecution's functions fundamentally destroys the criminal justice system.

Prosecutor Park argued that such a bill is nothing more than a trick to dismiss charges, equivalent to creating a law for non-indictment of politicians or a law for their acquittal. He emphasized that a series of measures taken under the guise of prosecution reform are actually being abused as means to achieve political objectives.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong strongly criticized the contradictory behavior of lawmaker Kim Nam-hee, who voted in favor of the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act abolishing supplementary investigative powers, yet blamed the prosecution for the lack of measures against inadequate investigations by investigative agencies. He pointed out that it is an irresponsible attitude for lawmakers to pass a bill that reduces the prosecution's investigative authority and then transfer responsibility for resulting problems to the prosecution.

Currently, the prosecution's investigative command power has been revoked, making it difficult to effectively address supplementary investigations. Prosecutor Park raised his voice in criticism, stating that ignoring this reality and shifting all responsibility to the prosecution is an attempt to conceal the mistakes of the lawmakers who voted in favor of the bill.

He emphasized that the National Assembly, when creating laws, must do so with deep deliberation and a sense of responsibility for the outcomes the laws will bring. In particular, he argued that anticipating problems due to investigative power adjustments and then neglecting them is an act of passing the damage onto the public.

He warned that such a situation not only impairs the efficiency and fairness of the judicial system but also can lead to a decline in public trust in the judiciary.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong pointed out that the police's 'self-closure' problem in connection with the Jang Min-han disappearance case is serious. In particular, he revealed that there were more than 10 confirmed cases where a police sergeant closed a case on their own.

He criticized this inappropriate method of police case processing, stating that it makes it difficult to prevent similar incidents from recurring and undermines public trust in the police.

Amidst the controversy surrounding the interpretation of the Supreme Court Chief Justice's power to appoint Supreme Court justices, Prosecutor Park Sang-yong discussed Representative Lee Jae-myung's push for a bill to increase the number of Supreme Court justices and the appointment process for Supreme Court justices. He emphasized that the composition of the Supreme Court is constitutionally designed to be balanced and explained that the President's power of appointment is merely a procedure to grant democratic legitimacy to individuals recommended by the Chief Justice.

Therefore, he argued that the President's appointment power should not be exercised in a way that infringes upon the independence of the Supreme Court's composition, emphasizing the need for a cautious approach to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong strongly criticized attempts to simultaneously appoint a married couple as a Constitutional Court justice and a Supreme Court justice. He pointed out that the situation itself, where a couple appointed by Representative Lee Jae-myung would serve as a Constitutional Court justice and a Supreme Court justice, poses a serious problem.

He raised ethical issues regarding public official appointments, citing the case of the Attorney General during US President Kennedy's era. In particular, he explained that in Korea's four-tier judicial system, if a married couple simultaneously holds positions as a Constitutional Court justice and a Supreme Court justice, matters judged by the Supreme Court could be re-evaluated by the Constitutional Court, virtually creating automatic grounds for recusal.

He warned that this is a serious problem that undermines the fairness and independence of the judicial system and a dangerous attempt that could shake the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong expressed strong disappointment with Judge Kim Min-ki's decision to accept the offer of appointment as a Constitutional Court justice or Supreme Court justice. He argued that Judge Kim Min-ki should have refused such an appointment as a public official.

Prosecutor Park criticized the acceptance of the appointment itself as demonstrating a lack of qualification as a public official. Emphasizing shame and a sense of responsibility as a legal professional, he stressed that public officials must make ethical judgments based on public trust.

He emphasized that Judge Kim should have refused the position herself, considering that such an appointment could undermine the independence and fairness of the judiciary.