Translating into Русский. The English version is shown until it is ready.
Seoul courts split on special prosecutor dispatch after prosecution overhaul
Коротко
South Korean courts reached different conclusions on whether prosecutors dispatched to special prosecutor teams may take part in hearings, after the Prosecutors' Office was abolished and the Public Prosecution Office launched on Oct 2. Seoul High Court ruled in former President Yoon Suk-yeol's insurrection appeal that there was no special problem with their participation, while another Seoul court excluded a dispatched prosecutor from a hearing the same day. The courts and the two sides dispute whether existing dispatch orders remain valid without new ones.
Читать полностью 2 мин чтения
Courts in Seoul reached differing conclusions on Oct 6 about whether prosecutors dispatched to special prosecutor teams may take part in hearings, after the Prosecutors' Office was abolished and the Public Prosecution Office launched on Oct 2 under amended criminal procedure rules. Yonhap reported that confusion over the legality of their court participation continued, with one court excluding a dispatched prosecutor and another finding no problem. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
In the appeal hearing on insurrection leader charges against former President Yoon Suk-yeol, the Seoul High Court said there was no special problem with the participation of dispatched prosecutors. Kyunghyang Shinmun identified the panel as Criminal Division 12-1, presided over by judge Lee Seung-chul, while Yonhap identified it as Criminal Division 1, presided over by judge Yoon Seong-sik. The court cited the addendum to the amended Criminal Procedure Act, under which dispatched special prosecutor prosecutors retain investigative and direction powers under the previous rules, and the addendum to the Public Prosecution Office Act, under which former Prosecutors' Office prosecutors are treated as Public Prosecution Office prosecutors. [ 1 , 3 ]
Yoon's defence argued that maintaining the dispatch had no legal basis and asked the special prosecutor team to submit the grounds for any separate dispatch order. The special prosecutor team countered with the addenda to the Public Prosecution Office Act and said the Ministry of Justice would send the court an official document stating that the existing dispatch order remains valid without a new one; Kyunghyang Shinmun added that the Personnel Innovation Office and the Ministry of Justice also took that position. The court said it would examine the matter further if the defence formally requested a ruling. [ 1 , 3 ]
The same day, Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 28, presided over by judge Han Dae-kyun, proceeded in the Coupang investigation obstruction case without the dispatched prosecutor. The court said it wanted to avoid creating controversy and that it was not concluding the participation was illegal, and a special prosecutor deputy handled the scheduled witness questioning. [ 3 ]
The divergence began on Oct 2. Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 36, presiding over the alleged illegal diversion of budget in the relocation of the presidential residence, halted proceedings and questioned whether dispatching Public Prosecution Office prosecutors to a special prosecutor team was valid, saying no rule clearly kept the dispatch order effective. Seoul High Court Criminal Division 7, hearing the case over alleged payment of poll expenses for Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, found no problem with a dispatched prosecutor's participation and proceeded as scheduled. [ 1 , 3 ]
Почему это важно
The divergence leaves the handling of several high-profile cases, including the insurrection trial of a former president, dependent on which court hears them. Prosecutors and defendants are already arguing over the validity of dispatch orders, and courts have said they may review the question again if formally asked, so the uncertainty is likely to continue.
Ключевые факты
- The Prosecutors' Office was abolished and the Public Prosecution Office launched on Oct 2 as amended criminal procedure rules took effect. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- Prosecutors dispatched to special prosecutor teams had their affiliation changed from the Prosecutors' Office to the Public Prosecution Office. [ 1 , 3 ]
- On Oct 6, a Seoul High Court panel hearing insurrection leader charges against former President Yoon Suk-yeol found no special problem with dispatched prosecutors taking part. [ 1 , 3 ]
- Yoon's defence argued there was no legal basis for maintaining the dispatch and asked for the grounds to be submitted. [ 1 , 3 ]
- The special prosecutor team cited the Public Prosecution Office Act addenda and said the Ministry of Justice would send an official document saying the existing dispatch order is valid. [ 1 , 3 ]
- Also on Oct 6, Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 28 proceeded in the Coupang investigation obstruction case without the dispatched prosecutor. [ 3 ]
- On Oct 2, Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 36 halted proceedings in the presidential residence relocation case over the validity of the dispatch. [ 1 , 3 ]
Подтверждено несколькими источниками
- The Prosecutors' Office was abolished and the Public Prosecution Office launched on Oct 2, changing the affiliation of prosecutors dispatched to special prosecutor teams. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- On Oct 6 a Seoul High Court panel hearing the insurrection leader case against former President Yoon Suk-yeol ruled that dispatched prosecutors' participation raised no special problem, while the defence argued there was no legal basis for it. [ 1 , 3 ]
- The special prosecutor team cited the Public Prosecution Office Act addenda and said it would submit a Ministry of Justice document stating the existing dispatch order remains valid. [ 1 , 3 ]
- The court said it would review the matter further if the defence formally requested a ruling. [ 1 , 3 ]
- On Oct 2, Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 36 suspended proceedings in the presidential residence relocation case over the dispatch question. [ 1 , 3 ]
Пока неясно
- Which Seoul High Court panel handled the Oct 6 hearing in the Yoon Suk-yeol insurrection appeal. Kyunghyang Shinmun names Criminal Division 12-1 presided by judge Lee Seung-chul, while Yonhap names Criminal Division 1 presided by judge Yoon Seong-sik; the documents do not reconcile this.
- Whether dispatch orders issued under the former Prosecutors' Office remain valid without new orders for all dispatched prosecutors. Courts reached different conclusions on Oct 6, and the question is still subject to argument by the two sides.
- The stated position of the Ministry of Justice and the Personnel Innovation Office that existing dispatch orders remain valid. Mentioned only by Kyunghyang Shinmun and described as a position to be conveyed in an official document.
- How other courts will handle dispatched prosecutors in pending cases. Only the individual decisions reported by the documents are known; no common rule is stated.
Что пишут местные СМИ
Хронология, местное время
- The Prosecutors' Office is abolished and the Public Prosecution Office launches, changing the affiliation of prosecutors dispatched to special prosecutor teams. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 36 halts proceedings in the presidential residence relocation case after questioning the validity of dispatching Public Prosecution Office prosecutors to a special prosecutor team. [ 1 , 3 ]
- Seoul High Court Criminal Division 7 finds no problem with a dispatched prosecutor's participation and proceeds as scheduled in the Oh Se-hoon poll expense case. [ 3 ]
- A Seoul High Court panel hearing the insurrection leader case against former President Yoon Suk-yeol says dispatched prosecutors' participation raises no special problem and continues the hearing. [ 1 , 3 ]
- Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 28 proceeds in the Coupang investigation obstruction case without the dispatched prosecutor, with a special prosecutor deputy handling witness questioning. [ 3 ]