◀ anchor ▶
Two years ago, when the prosecution investigated the suspicion of special military service for the son of the former Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae, the ACRC gave an authoritative interpretation of the fact that the family of the victim was in the position of the Minister of Justice, saying, ” There is no possibility of a conflict of interest.”
The Audit and Inspection Board requested an investigation into the prosecution, saying that there was a suspicion that the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commissioner Jeon Hyeon-hee was unfairly involved in the interpretation of the rights at the time.
However, the former chairman refuted that the definitive basis for interpreting the authority was an official letter sent by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office during the time of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol.
Reporter Lee Ji-haul reports.
◀ Report ▶
This is an official letter sent by the Supreme Prosecutors Office to the Chairman of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission on September 11, 2020.
The seal of the Prosecutor General is clearly stamped on it, and the Prosecutor General at that time was President Yoon Seok-yeol.
The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office officially replied, “There is no report to the Ministry of Justice,” and “Minister Choo Mi-ae has never exercised control over the Prosecutor General.”
Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commissioner Jeon Hyun-hee said, “The interpretation of authority at the time Minister Chu said there was no conflict of interest in relation to his son’s case was based on this official document from the Supreme Office Prosecutor. ”
[전현희/국민권익위원장]
“As you can see, the conclusion was made by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. If we instruct our employees to ignore this answer and answer, ‘There is a conflict of interest,’ then that would be an abuse of power.”
Regarding the allegation that the former chairman avoided the audit by the Audit and Inspection Board and obstructed the audit, he said, “The audit dates suggested by the Audit and Inspection Board overlapped with the National Supervisor or the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights. Commission, and we were proposing another date.”
The Scrutiny and Inspection Board also argued that it was against the Scrutiny and Inspection Board Act and business rules for the Scrutiny and Inspection Board to request an investigation of an investigative agency without a decision from the Scrutiny Committee.
[전현희/국민권익위원장]
“(The Board of Audit and Inspection) illegally commissioned an investigation into the prosecution while passing all this in order to achieve the results of an audit in any way…”
The Democratic Party of Korea also held a press conference and announced that it plans to file additional charges against the Audit and Inspection Board.
[박주민/더불어민주당 의원]
“The reporting route is unclear, the purpose of the audit seems to be constantly changing, and a mandatory audit… ‘planned audit’ and ‘planned investigation request’ fueled suspicions about things such…”
This was refuted by the Audit and Inspection Board, saying, “Many employees of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission made statements that differed from those of the former chairman.”
He also said, “It is true that the former chairman avoided the investigation and obstructed the audit, and the request for an investigation by the prosecution is not a decision by the audit committee.”
This is Lee Ji-sun from MBC News.
Video Editing: Woo Seong-ho
MBC News awaits your report 24 hours a day.
▷ Telephone 02-784-4000
▷ Email mbcjebo@mbc.co.kr
▷ KakaoTalk Report @mbc
