Prosecutors could summon prominent figures in reopened Sewol investigation

Posted on : 2017-05-30 16:43 KST Modified on : 2019-10-19 20:29 KST
Possibility of resumed investigation rising after revelation that then-Justice Minister pressured Prosecutors
A man passes by a framed copy of the prosecutor’s oath
A man passes by a framed copy of the prosecutor’s oath

Following the revelation that Hwang Kyo-ahn (then Minister of Justice) was behind the instructions given to Prosecutors investigating the sinking of the Sewol ferry not to charge the suspects with work-related negligence causing death, Prosecutors are leaning toward the view that they will have to reopen their investigation.

Prosecutors believe this issue is at the heart of remarks made by President Moon Jae-in shortly after his inauguration about “reinvestigating the Sewol sinking” and about “the influence-peddling scandal being handed over to Prosecutors before the Special Prosecutor’s period of investigation could be extended.” While Prosecutors released the final results of their investigation into the Sewol sinking in Oct. 2014, critics have said they failed to get to the bottom of the accident. Considering that the second investigation into the influence-peddling scandal by the Special Office of Investigations in March and April has been slammed for having lacked the will to investigate and for being incomplete, Moon’s public criticism is placing considerable pressure on Prosecutors.

Some of these concerns were reflected in remarks made by a well-placed source with the Prosecutors, on May 29: “Now that the new administration has taken over, Prosecutors probably ought to explain to the public why the investigation was delayed so long and why it wasn’t handled properly.”

Several remarks by sources in the Prosecutors, who were involved in the investigation, as to why the investigation of the Coast Guard was delayed after the Sewol sinking converge on a single point. The selection of the team of investigators and the launch of the investigation were deliberately delayed, these sources say, out of the concern that the ruling party would be trounced, first during the local elections on June 4 and later during the by-elections on July 30.

“The criminal division at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and the Gwangju District Office of the Prosecutors kept submitting reports pushing for the launch of the Coast Guard investigation, but the Ministry of Justice was immovable. The media explained that there were concerns about hurting morale at the Coast Guard, which was also investigating the Sewol sinking, but this was all about the election,” said a former senior official with the Prosecutors who is well-informed about the circumstances at the time.

The situation at the time was aptly summed up by the National Action Meeting for the Sewol Tragedy in June 2014: “The government has mobilized not only the prosecutors and the police but also the army in its zeal to apprehend Yoo Byung-eun [a businessman associated with the company that owned the Sewol] as it tries to avoid responsibility for the failed rescue. The investigation that Prosecutors ought to move more quickly on is the failed rescue by the Coast Guard and the control tower that allowed an accident to turn into a disaster.”

When Prosecutors reopen their investigation, it’s widely expected that they will focus on who gave the orders to omit the charge of work-related negligence causing death from their request for an arrest warrant for the captain of Coast Guard patrol boat 123. “Even if the motivations for the external pressure to delay the investigation were political and inappropriate, that in itself would be hard to prosecute. There’s no law prohibiting that. But if the Justice Minister gave specific instructions for a particular charge to be omitted from the Prosecutors‘ request for an arrest warrant, that would be an abuse of his authority,” said one source with the Prosecutors. The source added that the crime could be seen as having been completed since the charge of work-related negligence causing death was left off the actual warrant, even though it was included when Prosecutors filed charges without asking for the suspect to be jailed.

There is precedent for the comments that Prosecutors are making. In May 2001, former Prosecutor General Shin Seung-nam (then a senior official at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office) called the director of the Ulsan District Prosecutors’ Office, who was investigating allegations of bribery against Pyeongchang General Construction, and asked the director to be lenient in the case. When the director of the Ulsan District Office attended Shin’s inauguration ceremony a little more than 20 days later, Shin once again asked for the internal probe to be ended, and this request was granted. He was later charged with abusing his authority and obstructing the exercise of legal rights, and his conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2007. “These acts essentially forced a Prosecutor who had uncovered concrete allegations and was moving forward with them according to standard protocol to do something he was not obligated to do,” the Supreme Court said in its ruling.

But since the positions of Justice Minister and Prosecutor General are currently vacant, it’s unclear whether Prosecutors will immediately move to reopen the investigation. For the same reason, Prosecutors expect that the investigation will not be reopened until after these top appointments have been made. When Prosecutors officially reopen the case, not only Hwang and former Prosecutor General Kim Jin-tae but also a large number of Prosecutors who were in leadership positions at the Justice Ministry, the Supreme Office of the Prosecutors and the Gwangju District Office of the Prosecutors during the events in question are likely to be called in for questioning.

By a special reporting team

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

 

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Related stories