The procedure disappeared, leaving only the stamp. Hanmiilbo Graphics

The prosecution's abandonment of the appeal in the Daejang-dong case (November 7th) has made it impossible to increase the sentence in the appellate trial. The ruling party cited "restraint in excessive appeals," while the opposition party targeted Justice Minister Chung Sung-ho, accusing him of "self-blocking the path to recovery."

To understand the situation correctly, we must first examine the context of the remarks made at the State Council. On September 30th, President Lee Jae-myung instructed at the State Council, "The prosecution is harassing the public with baseless indictments and appeals/petitions for immunity," and ordered, "Either provide general guidance or change the regulations." Justice Minister Chung Sung-ho responded, "I agree with the need to restrict appeals/petitions and will pursue institutional changes." 

Although formally a policy directive not specifying individual cases, it functioned as a de facto instruction given its public issuance immediately before the Daejang-dong first-instance trial (October 31st). Therefore, the government must transparently disclose relevant data regarding whether these remarks directly led to the decision to abandon the Daejang-dong appeal.

This decision is significant in that the state has voluntarily closed the channel for legal correction. The first instance found embezzlement under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes not guilty, only ruling on embezzlement by duty. There were also numerous acquittals or partial acquittals for crimes such as subsequent bribery and violation of the conflict of interest prevention act. This was a case where the appellate trial should have re-established the calculation of damages and the determination of quid pro quo to open up possibilities for increased recovery and confiscation. 

However, with the prosecution abandoning the appeal, the prohibition of disadvantageous modification came into effect, blocking any increase in sentence. The scope for re-examining the first-instance acquittals/partial acquittals was also structurally reduced. The packaging of "restraint" is insufficient to conceal the facts, as what was abandoned was not the trial itself, but the possibility of public interest that the state's right of appeal upheld.

The political motivations are clear. 

First, if the key issues deemed not guilty or partially not guilty in the first instance are overturned in the appellate trial, it will indirectly impact the factual and legal evaluation of the cases separately indicted related to President Lee Jae-myung. 

Second, as the main Daejang-dong case drags on, the ruling camp's political costs accumulate. 

The prosecution leadership and the Minister of Justice chose an early shutdown to avoid these two risks, and their means was not to appeal. This decision subordinates prosecutorial power to the political calendar and cannot be beautified by the term "legal restraint." 

The direction of responsibility is clear. 

Specific case direction should follow a single path from the Minister of Justice to the Prosecutor General, with practical coordination handled by the Prosecutor General's line (Supreme Prosecutors' Office leadership). The circumstances where the decision to appeal went up to the district prosecutor level and was overturned at the last minute point to the responsibility of the leadership. The explanation that "there is little practical benefit in appealing" is merely an excuse that selectively presents part of the facts. While the trial continues due to the defendants' appeals, only the state has closed the path for sentence enhancement and expansion.

Legally, there is a high possibility of abuse of power.

The Minister and the Prosecutor General possess the authority to direct and supervise based on Article 8 of the Prosecutors' Office Act. However, if this authority was exercised to block the exercise of the right of appeal in specific cases based on political necessity, it would constitute an unlawful and improper use of power. In particular, if the substantive exercise of the right of appeal held by the trial division was obstructed due to higher-level directives, it could be interpreted as obstruction of the exercise of rights, which is prohibited by Article 123 of the Criminal Act. 

However, establishing abuse of power requires strict conditions regarding "forcing the performance of a duty that is not owed" or "obstruction of the exercise of rights." Therefore, the purpose and circumstances of the directive, internal approval documents, and the legal status of the trial team's right of appeal become contentious issues. This newspaper will mark this part as [under verification], but based on the current circumstances, it is considered highly likely that the elements of the offense are met.

Questions also remain regarding procedural compliance. 

It has not been disclosed whether the Committee for Deliberation on Appeals was convened. There is no trace of a meeting being called or resolved in the announcements from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, nor in the official statements from the investigation team. Given the precedent of publicizing the convening of such meetings for similar cases, there is a strong indication that it may not have been held. If procedures were omitted or nullified, this would align with suspicions of violating regulations and internal procedures.

This choice must be recorded as a retreat of the rule of law. 

The more complex the alleged design crime involving high public interest and substantial sums of money, the more crucial it is to enhance the reliability of judgments through appellate review. If this is also blocked by political interests, all that remains is the self-negation of prosecutorial power. The prosecution leadership and the Minister of Justice must not conceal their incompetence and shamelessness, but should publicly disclose the circumstances of the decision and the allocation of responsibility in writing. That is the minimum requirement for the rule of law.

#Daejangdong #AbandonAppeal #ProhibitionOfDisadvantageousModification #AbuseOfPower  #ProsecutionLeadership #JusticeMinisterChungSungHo #ProsecutorGeneralLine #CommitteeForDeliberationOnAppeals  #Recovery #RuleOfLaw