On November 2nd, the high-ranking public officials’ crime investigation department (Public Investigation Office) summoned and investigated Son Jun-seong, a human rights protection officer (former Investigative Information Policy Officer of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office) of the Daegu High Prosecutors’ Office, a key figure in the suspicion of ‘accuser’. It has been about a week since the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the arrest warrant for Sohn requested by the Ministry of Public Security on the 26th.
According to the legal circles on the 31st, the Ministry of Airlift and Public Security is focusing on reinforcement investigations to identify the author of the complaint before the hand inspection investigation. As a public prosecutor who is criticized for “recklessly requesting an arrest warrant without any key evidence,” it is urgent to secure additional evidence to reverse the situation. Earlier on the 29th, when the complaint was written, the Airborne Service summoned a prosecutor belonging to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office to investigate.
In April last year, when Prosecutor Sohn served as the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office for Investigation and Information Policy, he instructs his prosecutors to write a complaint about passport holders, and delivers the complaint along with relevant materials to Rep. I see you did Prosecutor Sohn has been designated as the ‘first sender of the complaint’ because the telegram message that Rep. Kim delivered the complaint to Jo Seong-eun, who first reported the allegation of accusation, said ‘Send Jun-seong Son’.
However, during the substantive examination of the warrant, Prosecutor Sohn was reported to have refuted such a message as an indication of ‘returning’ the data received from someone. When requesting an arrest warrant for Prosecutor Sohn, the Ministry of Airborne Affairs wrote down both the person who wrote the complaint and the person to whom it was delivered as ‘unknown names’.
On April 3, last year, when the message of the complaint was delivered, the Public Investigation Service confirmed the circumstances in which a prosecutor affiliated with the Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office for Investigation and Information Policy searched for judgments related to the whistleblower’s ‘prosecution and affiliation’ contained in the contents of the complaint. The prosecutor’s hand is expected to come out with the logic of “the daily information gathering activity of the swordsman.”
Reporter Choi Han-jong onebell@hankyung.com
ⓒ Hankyung.com, unauthorized reprinting and redistribution prohibited
