On the first day of the Public Prosecution Office's establishment, a debate arose in court regarding the authority of special prosecutors dispatched following the abolition of the Prosecutor's Office. In response, the Second Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's Team, led by Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-young, asserted that existing dispatches remain valid.
On October 2, the 36th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Lee Jeong-yeop, held a hearing on the case involving former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min, former Chief of Staff to the President Kim Dae-ki, and former Chief Secretary Yoon Jae-soon, who are accused of abuse of power. The court noted, "There are doubts about the legality of the dispatched prosecutor's attendance. It does not appear that there is a clear regulation stating that a dispatch order remains valid even if the office changes." The court subsequently suspended the proceedings.
Similarly, the 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court, which is handling allegations against Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon regarding the payment of public opinion survey expenses, raised concerns during a hearing, stating, "There seem to be issues related to the prosecutor's status following the transition to the Public Prosecution Office." As the courts continued to question the qualifications of the special prosecutors, the Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's Office issued a statement asserting that "the dispatch of existing prosecutors from the Prosecutor's Office to the Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's Office should be considered valid for the duration of the dispatch, even without separate transitional regulations."
The special prosecutor's team cited Articles 7 and 8 of the transitional provisions of the Public Prosecution Office Act, explaining that the qualifications of prosecutors dispatched from the Prosecutor's Office are inherited. Article 7 states, 'Former prosecutors of the Prosecutor's Office are regarded as prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Office,' while Article 8 clarifies that 'when referring to public officials from the former Prosecutor's Office regarding matters transferred to the Public Prosecution Office, it is considered as referring to public officials of the Public Prosecution Office.'
The special prosecutor's team further stated that the duties of dispatched public officials are included in the matters that the Public Prosecution Office naturally inherits following the abolition of the Prosecutor's Office. Therefore, according to Article 6, Paragraph 5 of the Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's Act, prosecutors on dispatch maintain their status as public officials and prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Office under the transitional provisions of the Public Prosecution Office Act. The special prosecutor's team emphasized that it is reasonable to view the validity of existing dispatches as continuing without interruption during the dispatch period.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.