hankyoreh

By Kim Won-chul, staff reporter

A public prosecutor surnamed Son, 49, received a reprimand for asking two female prosecutors to give him a kiss during a company dinner in Oct. 2010. A prosecutor surnamed Ku, 41, was dismissed after forcing a female intern who was serving as an assistant prosecutor into inappropriate physical contact in Jan. 2011.

Four months later, a prosecutor surnamed Park, 49, was docked two months pay after asking two women at a karaoke room to slow dance with him. The strict disciplinary rules for sexual misbehavior - which were established after the “Busan sponsor prosecutor” scandal - have also been rigorously applied against a prosecutor surnamed Choi, 50, who made inappropriate remarks to a female reporter and against a prosecutor surnamed Lee, 37, who touched a female lawyer’s belly in a karaoke room. Choi was suspended for 3 months, while Lee was reprimanded.

So far, so good. But then Lee Jin-han, second deputy prosecutor at the Seoul Central Prosecutors’ Office, offered to kiss female reporters several times and actually kissed the backs of their hands and groped them, putting his arms around their waists. But Lee only received a warning from the chief of the inspection headquarters. According to the regulations for disciplinary measures against prosecutors, a warning is not even a form of discipline (defined as termination, dismissal, suspension, salary reduction, and reprimand).

When reporters asked why Lee was given such unusually lenient treatment, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office tried to shift the blame, repeating that this was the decision of the inspection committee.

The prosecution inspection committee, which is made up of external figures, considers what should be done about inappropriate behavior and recommends specific measures to the prosecutor general. The final decision, however, is made by the prosecutor general.

The prosecutors countered by saying that they generally accept all of the decisions made by the inspection board. But this was not the case when the decision was made to request heavy and light disciplinary action against Yun Seok-yeol, 54, head of the Yeoju branch of the Suwon prosecutors’ office, and Park Hyung-cheol, 46, head of the public criminal division for the Seoul Central Prosecutors’ Office. (Yun had led the special investigation team into charges that the National Intelligence Service had interfered in the presidential election, and Park was second-in-command of the team.)

At the time of that decision, the members of the inspection committee failed to reach a unanimous decision. Ultimately, the final decision as made by the prosecutors, referring to the opinion of the inspection committee. Facing criticism for having gone easy on Lee, the prosecutors appear to be trying to hide behind the inspection committee, whose members are not part of the organization.

There is also evidence that the prosecutors had already made up their minds to let Lee off easy even before the inspection committee convened. On Jan. 10, the Ministry of Justice made personnel reassignments for high-ranking prosecutors, to take effect on Jan. 16. Lee did not face any major disadvantage, being assigned as the new head of the prosecutors’ office in the West district of Daegu. Four days later, the prosecutors’ inspection committee resolved to just give Lee a warning for his behavior.

Typically, the Ministry of Justice asks the opinions of other institutions, including the prosecutors’ inspection committee, before making personnel changes. This implies that the prosecutors’ inspection committee may already have informed the Ministry of Justice that Lee had only committed a minor infraction. When asked about this, Kim Hun, an acting manager with the supreme prosecutors’ inspection department, avoided a direct response, saying he was not able to speak on the matter. Some of the members of the inspection board are saying that they did not even know that the victims wanted Lee to be punished severely.

Worst of all is the fact that the victim is being blamed. In a telephone interview with the Hankyoreh, one member of the inspection committee explained the reason for the unusually lenient treatment as follows. “There was no one present who said, ‘This is sexual assault, you shouldn’t do this.’ We based our decision on the fact that no one on the scene made their opinion known.”

The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office accepted this opinion at face value. During a press briefing on Jan. 14, Kim Hun said that one of the reasons that Lee was not disciplined harshly was that no one had expressed their opposition when the incident occurred. While he later apologized for this as a slip of the tongue, it sheds some light on the attitudes held by the prosecutors and the other officials on the inspection board.

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