Prosecutor General's Inspection Department Faces Controversy Over 'Illegal Forensics' on Spokesperson's Work Phone... Law Solidarity Files Charges for Abuse of Power Against Inspection Chief

Handongsoo, Chief of Inspection Division, Supreme Prosecutors' Office.

원본보기 아이콘

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Inspection Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office (Head Han Dong-soo) has sparked controversy by arbitrarily securing the official phones used by the spokespersons of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office during former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol’s tenure, conducting forensic analysis without notifying the actual users or allowing them to observe the process.

There are criticisms that unrestricted access to call logs and text messages without the phone users’ observation amounts to censorship of the press. Furthermore, suspicions of ‘subcontracted inspection’ have been raised after the High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Office (HOCI) seized the forensic data through a search and seizure immediately following the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department’s forensic analysis.

According to the legal community on the 8th, Kim Deok-gon, Head of Inspection Division 3 at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, requested Seo In-seon, spokesperson of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, on the 29th of last month to voluntarily submit the official phones used by former spokespersons Kwon Soon-jung and Lee Chang-soo. The stated purpose was the investigation of the ‘accusation inducement’ case and the ‘documents related to former Prosecutor General Yoon’s mother-in-law.’

During this process, Kim reportedly told Seo that “not voluntarily submitting the phone and being uncooperative with the inspection would itself be an inspection issue.” When Seo pointed out that former spokesperson Kwon should participate in the forensic process, Kim responded that “a clerical staff member from the spokesperson’s office who manages the phones can observe,” adding that they had completed legal reviews and would handle the procedures, asking for trust.

When Seo asked again whether Kim had contacted former spokesperson Kwon, Kim replied that he had not. When Seo offered to contact Kwon directly, Kim reportedly stopped her, saying “that would be a leak of the inspection.”

The clerical staff member designated by Kim to observe refused to do so, citing that they were not the actual user of the phone. Consequently, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department freely conducted forensic analysis on the spokespersons’ official phones without any observer present.

The reason for allowing the subject to observe the forensic process is to prevent extraction of data unrelated to the charges under investigation or inspection. Typically, observation occurs twice: once during imaging (copying phone data to another medium) and once when extracting relevant files from the imaged data. Especially if unrelated data is extracted during an ongoing investigation or inspection, the observer can raise objections.

Following the controversy, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department explained in a statement that “under the Criminal Procedure Act, the current custodian should be given the opportunity to observe during the forensic stage, and if information related to the investigation emerges, the information subject should be notified. However, since three initializations had already been performed, no information could be restored, so there was no possibility of post-notification to the information subject.”

However, legal circles criticized this explanation as “nonsense.” They argued that opening the phone first and notifying later is illogical, and that if the information is the target of seizure, the information subject’s observation is naturally required.

An active prosecutor said, “Who should observe the forensic process depends on whether the seizure target is the ‘item’ or the ‘information.’ If the target is the item, consent from the current possessor or holder is sufficient. But if the target is specific information contained within the item, the subject of that information should observe.”

In this case, since the seizure aimed to extract call logs and text messages stored in the official phone, the explanation is that the former spokesperson Kwon, who actually used the phone and was the subject of the inspection, should have observed directly, not the prosecutorial staff who merely held the phone.

Former spokesperson Kwon issued a statement titled “Position on the Supreme Prosecutors' Office’s Warrantless Seizure and Secret Forensic Analysis” the previous day, stating, “The Inspection Department’s warrantless seizure of the official work phone exclusively used by the spokesperson and secret forensic analysis without guaranteeing the participation rights of the former spokesperson seriously violated the constitutional principle of warrant requirement and procedural fairness, as well as infringed on press freedom.”

He emphasized, “The purpose of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act guaranteeing the right to participate in seizure and search is to prevent investigative agencies from arbitrarily securing electronic information stored on storage media without distinguishing relevance to criminal charges, thereby realizing the constitutional principle of warrant requirement. The Supreme Court has already established continuous participation rights throughout the entire seizure and search process, and prohibits viewing or copying storage media without the presence of the party as fundamental forensic principles.”

Kwon added, “Ultimately, the Inspection Department attempted to ‘access without any restriction’ all electronic information stored on the phone while excluding the former spokesperson, and such ‘access’ and ‘viewing’ actually occurred. Due to these improper actions, suspicions are arising that the Inspection Department intended to surveil the overall relationship with the media during the former Prosecutor General’s tenure beyond a simple fact-finding investigation.”

Meanwhile, suspicions have been raised that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office and HOCI coordinated in advance after HOCI conducted a search and seizure of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department immediately after the latter completed forensic analysis of the former spokespersons’ official phones and took the forensic data.

HOCI conducted a search and seizure of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department on the 5th, exactly one week after the department had voluntarily submitted the spokespersons’ official phones, securing the forensic data.

The ‘accusation inducement’ related materials held by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department had already been handed over to HOCI after being secured through a search and seizure by the Public Investigation Division 1 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office last September.

Therefore, there is suspicion that HOCI was informed through some channel that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department had obtained new materials, prompting the second search and seizure.

HOCI is reportedly in urgent need of additional evidence, having failed to secure meaningful testimony from key suspects such as former Supreme Prosecutors' Office Investigation Information Policy Officer Son Jun-sung and People Power Party lawmaker Kim Woong.

Given the difficulty of obtaining a search warrant from the court for the official phones used by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office spokespersons, suspicions of ‘subcontracted inspection’ are growing that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department secured and conducted forensic analysis on the phones on behalf of HOCI under the pretext of inspection.

However, HOCI strongly denies these allegations.

In a statement released the previous day, HOCI said, “The ‘accusation inducement’ investigation team neither knows nor can know or needs to know the internal affairs of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office. The investigation team lawfully obtained a search warrant from the court as necessary for the investigation and received comprehensive related materials from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department as specified in the warrant.”

It added, “Reports suggesting that HOCI circumvented legal procedures and covertly obtained the phones or their contents through prior consultation with the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department are baseless speculation and damage the honor of HOCI and the ‘accusation inducement’ investigation team, for which we express regret.”

A HOCI official explained that the search and seizure was conducted only to secure materials for verifying inspection content conducted after receiving inspection materials transferred from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office at the end of last September.

The civic group “Action Alliance for Upholding the Rule of Law” (Law Solidarity) filed a criminal complaint against the head of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Department yesterday, accusing him of coercion and abuse of authority.

In the complaint, Law Solidarity stated, “During the process of securing the official phones used by former spokespersons Kwon Soon-jung and others related to the ‘accusation inducement’ suspicion and the investigation of documents concerning former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol’s mother-in-law, the Inspection Department effectively coerced current spokesperson Seo In-seon by saying ‘not submitting the phone would be uncooperative with the inspection and also an inspection issue,’ thereby compelling her to perform an unnecessary act. This constitutes coercion under Article 324 and abuse of authority under Article 123 of the Criminal Act, and we have filed a criminal complaint against the head of the Inspection Department.”

Law Solidarity pointed out, “The Inspection Department’s act of coercively obtaining the spokesperson’s official phone is a clear abuse of inspection authority, political inspection, and a serious anti-constitutional crime amounting to media surveillance and censorship of reporting.”

They added, “This case clearly infringes on constitutional press freedom and involves political inspection with impure motives such as election interference. Therefore, we strongly urge the prosecution to conduct a swift and thorough investigation and severely punish the accused.”

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.