Special Prosecutor Confirms Election Commission Employee's Suicide Note, Denies Coercive Interrogation

The Special Prosecutor's Office, led by Lee Tae-han, confirmed that a suicide note from a Central Election Commission employee who died after being questioned indicated there was no coercive interrogation.

On October 23, the special prosecutor expressed deep condolences for the employee who passed away two days prior and stated, "To prevent unnecessary controversy, we verified the deceased's suicide note through proper procedures."

The office noted, "The note contained no mention of coercive interrogation during the investigation. Instead, it expressed that the employee did not blame the special prosecutor's office and pointed out issues within the commission."

The special prosecutor added, "We are conducting the investigation based on objective materials, including detailed work logs. We will continue to work diligently to uncover corruption related to the commission's vendor collusion and contract favoritism, and to clarify accountability."

Earlier, on the morning of October 21, a 40-year-old employee of the Central Election Commission was found dead in an apartment. The employee had attended the special prosecutor's office as a suspect the day before, undergoing questioning with legal counsel present before returning home around 11 p.m.

The Central Election Commission issued a statement the following day, expressing regret that despite their cooperation with the special prosecutor's search and investigation procedures, the employee experienced severe psychological stress due to the ongoing investigation, resulting in the loss of a precious life.

In response, the special prosecutor asserted, "The employee was questioned only once during the joint investigation by the police and the special prosecutor's office. The questioning was conducted with the attorney present from start to finish, and the investigation was concluded around 8:55 p.m. at the employee's request to avoid a nighttime interrogation." They emphasized that there was no coercive atmosphere during the entire questioning process, and there were no objections to the content of the investigation or the records.

However, the law firm representing the deceased countered, stating, "The claim that there was no coercive atmosphere is not true. When the employee responded that they did not understand, the prosecutor shouted, 'Are you saying you don't know when I'm asking for a general answer?' The attorney protested that shouting while standing and pressuring for a specific answer is coercion."

Additionally, they noted, "The employee was struggling, and the attorney requested to conclude the questioning by 6:30 p.m., but the investigation team insisted, 'We can continue until 9 p.m. without consent, but after that, we need permission,' using regulations meant to protect the suspect as a means of pressure."