Choo's Facebook

<Reasons for the Ineligibility of the Candidate for Head of the Central Investigation Agency>
We demand a proper verification of candidate Kim Ji-yong.
There are three major reasons why the candidate for Head of the Central Investigation Agency is unfit:
① He is a pro-Yoon, pro-Han prosecutor who engaged in illegal collective action to oppose the disciplinary action against former Prosecutor General Yoon Suk-yeol while serving as the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office to protect him.
② He is a prosecutor-centrist who held a press conference publicly opposing prosecutorial reform while serving as the Head of the Criminal Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.
③ There are allegations that while serving as the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, he stamped his approval on the indictment records that unfairly prosecuted Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong, who investigated Han Dong-hoon regarding the Channel A case.
Since he was promoted to prosecutor general during Minister Choo Mi-ae's tenure in the Moon Jae-in administration, what help does calling Ko Gi-young—who ran away in fear ahead of the request for Yoon Suk-yeol's disciplinary action—as a witness provide in verifying Kim Ji-yong to prove the legitimacy of the claim that he is not a pro-Yoon prosecutor? What kind of truthful testimony can we possibly expect from someone of the same opportunistic breed?
Regarding the three allegations, we must ask the following:
First, we must interrogate him regarding the illegal collective action opposing Yoon Suk-yeol's disciplinary action.
The disciplinary action against Prosecutor General Yoon Suk-yeol was requested because he protected Han Dong-hoon, a suspect in the Channel A media-prosecution collusion case, and because former Prosecutor General Yoon committed serious misconduct, such as obstructing the Channel A investigation, obstructing inspections, and surveilling judges.
However, to protect Yoon Suk-yeol, who was under inspection and facing disciplinary requests due to such serious misconduct, prosecutors including Deputy Prosecutor General Kim Ji-yong of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office engaged in illegal collective action and mutinied.
If the candidate for Head of the Central Investigation Agency protected Yoon Suk-yeol, who committed serious misconduct through illegal collective action, how can he claim not to be a pro-Yoon or pro-Han prosecutor?
The candidate's side seems to argue that they engaged in collective action opposing the disciplinary request due to procedural issues and that the Seoul High Court recognized procedural flaws in the disciplinary trial. However, since the Seoul Administrative Court and the Seoul High Court ruled that there were no issues in the inspection process up until the time of the disciplinary request and Kim Ji-yong's collective action, the candidate's claim is nothing more than a false excuse.
The criterion for whether someone is a pro-Yoon prosecutor is not when they were promoted to prosecutor general, but whether they engaged in protecting Yoon Suk-yeol afterward. The peak of the protection of Yoon Suk-yeol was the collective petition.
All the pro-Yoon prosecutor generals who signed the collective petition opposing Yoon's disciplinary action were promoted to prosecutor general during the Moon Jae-in administration, when Yoon controlled the prosecution.
As such, being promoted to prosecutor general during Minister Choo Mi-ae's tenure in the Moon Jae-in administration has nothing to do with being a pro-Yoon prosecutor. Therefore, Ko Gi-young's testimony cannot be the key. Do not chase false leads and conduct a proper verification.
Second, he must be rebuked for the press conference opposing prosecutorial reform.
While serving as the Head of the Criminal Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, candidate Kim Ji-yong took the initiative to hold a press conference with other senior officials of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to publicly criticize and oppose the Moon Jae-in administration's prosecutorial reform. Now, he has changed his stance, claiming to empathize with prosecutorial reform for the sake of his career. How is he any different from former Prosecutor General Yoon Suk-yeol, who became Prosecutor General by deceiving people that he would implement prosecutorial reform, only to launch a prosecutorial coup?
Third, regarding the suspicion of approving the unfair indictment of Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong:
There is an allegation that while serving as the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, he stamped his approval on the indictment records that unfairly prosecuted Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong, who investigated Han Dong-hoon, a suspect in the Channel A media-prosecution collusion case.
① According to the delegation of authority regulations of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, the approval of the Deputy Prosecutor General is mandatory for the indictment of important cases.
② At the time of Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong's indictment, the Head of the Inspection Department of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office even personally distributed press releases stating, "All prosecutors had no differing opinions on the indictment."
③ Considering that the candidate does not even claim to have refused approval, there is a very high possibility that the candidate stamped his approval on the unfair indictment.
Because of that erroneous approval, the essence of the Channel A media-prosecution collusion case was decisively covered up. Since the case was trivialized by the mockery of "Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong's abuse of power," it is no different from having contributed to Yoon Suk-yeol's obstruction of the investigation and inspection regarding Han Dong-hoon.
If he truly did not approve it, he should simply state that he did not approve it.
Furthermore, the candidate continues to make lame excuses. He seems to claim there is no problem because he presented an opinion of "not guilty upon indictment" in the Jeong Jin-woong and Lee Kwang-cheol cases, but this is also completely wrong.
There is a saying: 'A prosecutor speaks through the indictment, and the command line speaks through approval.' Stamping an approval on an indictment and then claiming to have opposed it is meaningless; opposition means exercising the right to object in writing as prescribed by law.
What the candidate must disclose is "whether the candidate stamped his approval on the indictment for the unfair indictment of Jeong Jin-woong." If he stamped the approval, he must take responsibility and is unfit.
Additionally, it is argued that the candidate should become the Head of the Central Investigation Agency because he possesses investigative capabilities, but the case of Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong's alleged abuse of power was also finalized as not guilty, and the case regarding the travel ban on Kim Hak-eui concerning Lee Kwang-cheol, the Civil Affairs Secretary, was also finalized as not guilty.
Does it make sense to award the highest laurel to someone as a leader of an investigative organization when they must share responsibility for cases that resulted in not guilty verdicts?
Moreover, those two cases were symbolic cases of distortion and manipulation aimed at the Office of the Senior Secretary for Civil Affairs and the Ministry of Justice during the Moon Jae-in administration, which was pursuing prosecutorial reform.
The people are watching. Let us conduct the verification properly.