"FBI for Cho Kuk, cooperation request rejected for Han Dong-hoon"... Both parties slam prosecution at Prosecution Service audit [2026 Audit]

Questioning unequal standards of law enforcement depending on who was investigated
Park Cheolwoo: "Difficult to understand in light of the public's sense of justice"
Appeal decision process and prosecution leadership accountability under scrutiny
Summoned 62 times, statements recorded only 12 times... allegations of coercive questioning
Prosecution Service to review approval procedures for repeated summonses

"They even enlisted the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over a pop quiz taken by former Justice Minister Cho Kuk's son, but rejected a request for international cooperation in the investigation into allegations that former Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon's daughter falsified her credentials just 11 days after receiving it."

At the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's audit of prosecution offices in the Seoul metropolitan area on October 19, Kim Dong-a of the Democratic Party of Korea raised this issue by comparing the prosecution's past investigative practices. When Kim questioned whether the two cases had been treated equally, Park Cheolwoo, chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office, replied, "I believe there are aspects that are quite difficult to understand from the perspective of the public's sense of justice and expectations."

At the audit that afternoon, lawmakers from both the ruling and opposition parties repeatedly criticized the prosecution over the fairness of its past politically motivated investigations and its decisions on indictments and appeals. The Democratic Party pointed to differences between investigations involving former Minister Cho's family and those involving former Minister Han, while the People Power Party raised the investigation into allegations of Shincheonji members joining a political party and the decision to drop an appeal in the Daejang-dong case. Lawmakers pressed the Prosecution Service, which is to handle indictments and maintain prosecutions following the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office, to account for whether the prosecution had properly exercised its powers in the past.

Park Cheolwoo, chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecution Office, answers lawmakers' questions during a parliamentary audit of the Seoul Metropolitan Prosecution Office (formerly the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office) and other agencies, held by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 19th. Yonhap News.

"FBI brought in for Cho's family... Han's daughter's allegations rejected in 11 days"

Kim claimed, "While investigating former Minister Cho's family, the prosecution asked the FBI for investigative assistance over a pop quiz taken by his son at a U.S. university." A U.S. investigator directly questioned the professor there, and the prosecution submitted the resulting statement to the court as evidence, he said. By contrast, regarding allegations that former Minister Han's daughter had falsified her credentials, Kim said, "The Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office rejected an international cooperation request from the police just 11 days after receiving it." Kim criticized the prosecution, saying, "It applied different standards depending on who was being investigated," and, "That was how the former prosecution service conducted biased investigations, treating people differently."

Kim also took issue with the prosecution's decision to reject the request for international cooperation on its own. Under the relevant law, the request for cooperation should have been sent to the justice minister, but the prosecution rejected it without forwarding it, he said. He also said, "In the case involving former Minister Han's daughter, not a single warrant application or summons for questioning was made during the 1 year and 7 months from the filing of the complaint to the police decision not to refer the case for prosecution." He went on to demand that "the Prosecution Service actively cooperate with the police investigation into a case involving former Minister Han that is currently underway."

"Different investigations, appeals dropped"... opposition also criticizes prosecution over unequal treatment

Yoon Sang-hyun of the People Power Party also questioned the fairness of past prosecution investigations. Yoon said that, over allegations that Shincheonji members had joined political parties, the prosecution raided the People Power Party headquarters and the company managing its membership lists, but did not conduct a forced investigation into the Democratic Party. He asked why, saying, "Allegations of organized party membership drives were raised against both parties, yet the methods of investigation differed."

Jeong Yonghwan, acting chief of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, takes an oath as a witness at a parliamentary audit of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office and other agencies held by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 19th. Yonhap News Agency

Yoon argued that investigative authorities should apply the same standards when looking into allegations that Shincheonji officials had collectively joined a particular political party. He reiterated that while forced investigative measures, including search and seizure, were taken in connection with allegations involving the People Power Party, no equivalent measures were taken over allegations involving the Democratic Party.

The debate over fairness in investigative methods also extended to the prosecution's decision on whether to appeal. Kim Tae-gyu of the People Power Party raised the decision to drop an appeal in the Daejang-dong development corruption case, arguing that it differed from the prosecution's past practice of appealing. Kim said, "In my previous career as a judge, I almost never saw the prosecution refrain from appealing an acquittal," adding, "But then, suddenly, it dropped its appeal in the Daejang-dong case."

People Power Party lawmaker Kim Tae-gyu also questioned why prosecutors who had demanded an explanation for the decision to drop the appeal in the Daejang-dong case were later transferred or left the organization. Park, the chief, declined to give a direct answer, saying, "It is an internal decision-making process, so it is difficult to provide specific details." However, regarding the decision to drop the appeal, he explained, "The acting prosecutor general at the time and the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office discussed it directly and made the decision."

Park Cheolwoo, chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, answers lawmakers' questions during a parliamentary audit of the Seoul Metropolitan Prosecutors' Office (formerly the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office) and other agencies, held by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 19th. Yonhap News Agency

Detained suspect summoned 62 times, but statements recorded only 12 times... practices also under scrutiny

Repeated summons of suspects by the prosecution in the past also came under scrutiny. Lee Seong-yun of the Democratic Party said that, in a case involving former lawmaker Shin Young-dae, the prosecution summoned a detained suspect 62 times but recorded statements on only 12 occasions. "Is this a normal investigation?" Lee asked, criticizing the practice: "Repeatedly summoning someone until you get the statement you want is torture." Cha Sun-gil, chief of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors Office, replied, "It is advisable to avoid repeated questioning in person as much as possible." He added that, in this case, "Although it was not to the extent you described, the number of times the person was summoned was high."

Lee also questioned the internal oversight procedures for repeated prosecution summonses. Under current guidelines, a department head must approve summoning a suspect five or more times or a witness three or more times, he said. Lee asked the prosecution to check whether the approval and reporting procedures had been properly followed in the case, and Cha replied, "I will check and report back."

The audit also revealed differences between the ruling and opposition parties over the abolition of the prosecution's investigative powers. The People Power Party expressed concern that the loss of direct investigative powers and supplementary investigative powers could hinder the response to crime. The Democratic Party, by contrast, highlighted the prosecution's past politically motivated investigations and abuse of authority, stressing the need for reform.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.