Prosecutors waive appeal, apparently under pressure, benefiting criminals
The prosecution's waiver of appeal in a land development corruption case linked to President Lee Jae Myung's tenure as Seongnam mayor is causing quite a stir.
Chief prosecutors for districts across the country are pressing the acting prosecutor general for a convincing explanation about his decision to waive the appeal, effectively demanding his resignation.
The decision also sparked public outrage, particularly over the fact that the prosecution had become unable to recover all of the criminal proceeds identified, which amounted to more than 781 billion won ($533 million). The first-trial court, convicting all five defendants, acknowledged only 47.3 billion won as the amount to forfeit. Three of the defendants illegitimately reaped astronomical profits from small investments in the project to develop Daejang-dong in Seongnam. They allegedly structured it to their favor in collusion with the "leadership" of the city government.
Because the prosecution waived appeal but the defendants appealed, under the Criminal Procedure Act, prosecutors can only play defense against the defendants' expected arguments that their first-trial jail terms and forfeits were excessive.
Besides, the final outcome of this trial will likely influence another case against Lee linked to the Daejang-dong development, possibly to his advantage. Lee's trial was suspended after he was elected president.
The central question of the waiver-of-appeal issue is whether the justice minister and the presidential office put unlawful pressure on the prosecution to give up its appeal.
Officially, acting Prosecutor General Noh Man-seok ordered the waiver of the appeal. But the main opposition People Power Party points at Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho and suspects the presidential office of pulling strings.
Noh said that a vice justice minister had shown him several choices, all demanding the waiver of appeal, so he had no other choice. He also reportedly told researchers of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to bear the presidential office and the Justice Ministry in mind all the time.
Jung said that he had told the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to "judge carefully." He argued that it was a simple expression of his opinion, but for the acting chief prosecutor, his words would have inevitably been received as an instruction not to appeal. Few would view this differently.
But prosecutors themselves are much to blame for things coming to this.
The leadership of the prosecution may make their judgment, but frontline prosecutors could act on their own decisions if they deem the judgment from above unfair and illegal. It would not be easy to do so, but they have that option. Rather, they may face investigations later on charges of dereliction of duty.
A prosecutor involved in investigating the Daejang-dong case reportedly posted on an internal board that the team in charge of the trial unanimously decided to appeal. The chief prosecutor of the Seoul Central District requested approval of the appeal, and apparently reversed the decision after the Supreme Prosecutors' Office disapproved of the request. A prosecutor is said to have waited for an order from above in the court till the last moment of the appeal deadline.
No prosecutors dared to submit an appeal. They likely feared a career setback if they processed a case related to President Lee based on their conviction. It is hard to see their behavior any other way.
Prosecutors have failed to show an unyielding resolve to realize justice according to the law, no matter what. By giving up on appealing in the Daejang-dong case, they have renounced the legitimate power vested in them by the people to implement justice.
The root of this situation lies in the prosecution being subordinated to politics. In Korea, many politicians have habitually tried to hold their opponents at bay through prosecutorial investigations after taking power. Some influenced prosecutors through personnel transfer, and some "politically motivated" prosecutors reacted positively to undue external influence. Prosecutors appeared to avoid going against powerful politicians' intentions for the sake of personal or organizational gains.
In the Daejang-dong case, no one dared to carry the ball. Now it is all over, and they are furious. The outcome may be regrettable, but they should reflect on how they got there.
khnews@heraldcorp.com
