Prosecution. Yonhap News

There are criticisms from within and outside the prosecution that the Ministry of Justice's disciplinary personnel action on November 11th against prosecutors who issued a statement against the decision to abandon the appeal in the Daejang-dong case is a "blatant move to silence them."

In particular, the transfer of Yeoumi Jeong, a Senior Prosecutor and researcher at the Judicial Research and Training Institute, to a prosecutor at a High Prosecutors' Office, effectively a "demotion," has sparked controversy over its legality and is expected to have further repercussions.

This personnel change was somewhat anticipated, as the Ministry of Justice had mentioned the possibility of disciplinary action against the senior prosecutors who issued a collective statement against abandoning the appeal in the Daejang-dong case last month.

Eighteen senior prosecutors from the field had posted a message urging the then-acting Prosecutor General, Moon-seok Noh (Deputy Prosecutor General), to explain the circumstances of abandoning the appeal in the Daejang-dong development corruption case, stating, "The acting prosecutor general's position does not include specific circumstances or legal reasons for abandoning the appeal, making it incomprehensible."

In response, the ruling party criticized it as "collective insubordination" and pressured the Ministry of Justice for personnel action. It was reported that the Ministry of Justice had considered a plan to transfer all 18 senior prosecutors who signed the statement to the position of ordinary prosecutors, effectively demoting them.

Following this, acting Prosecutor General Noh voluntarily stepped down. Subsequently, Jae-eok Park, the Chief Prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, and Kang Song, the Chief Prosecutor of the Gwangju High Prosecutors' Office, who had signed the collective statement, successively offered their resignations. The Ministry of Justice then promptly appointed Cheol-woo Park (30th graduating class), then head of the Anti-Corruption Division at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, who was involved in the appeal abandonment process, to the position of Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, which became vacant due to the resignation of Prosecutor Jin-woo Jeong. This was analyzed as a clear direction for the exercise of personnel authority to rectify organizational discipline.

This personnel action also has a strong character as a follow-up measure intended to reinforce discipline and innovate personnel.

In today's personnel changes, three chief prosecutors from the field, who played a leading role in drafting the collective statement, were reassigned to the Judicial Research and Training Institute in what is considered a demotion.

Included were Hyuk-soo Park (32nd graduating class), Chief Prosecutor of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, who was promoted to senior prosecutor in the first personnel appointments of the Lee Jae-myung administration, and Hyun-cheol Park (31st graduating class), Chief Prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office, who served as spokesperson for the Supreme Prosecutors' Office and Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Central District Prosecutors' Office during the Yoon Suk-yeol administration before being promoted to senior prosecutor.

Chang-jin Kim (31st graduating class), Chief Prosecutor of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office, who was 'demoted' to a researcher at the Judicial Research and Training Institute after leading the investigation into the First Lady Kim Keon-hee's luxury bag receiving allegations and then received a field chief prosecutor position in the first appointments of the Lee Jae-myung administration, also received disciplinary personnel action. Prosecutors Chang-jin Kim and Hyun-cheol Park immediately offered their 'protesting' resignations after the personnel announcement.

The legal community is also criticizing the government for making excessive personnel decisions to prevent internal backlash during the prosecution reform process.

A lawyer who is a former senior prosecutor said, "Genuine internal issues should be allowed to be raised for the organization to remain healthy. Since this means no more discussions, there could be significant repercussions."

A lawyer who is a former deputy chief prosecutor pointed out, "This effectively means that one should not defy the government and ruling party's prosecution reform initiatives in the future. There was nothing problematic with the senior prosecutors' statement, as it was intended to request an explanation of the circumstances."

In particular, controversy is expected to continue surrounding the transfer of Researcher Jeong, who has been actively critical of the government and ruling party during past prosecution reform phases, to a prosecutor at a High Prosecutors' Office.

The Ministry of Justice maintains that since the Prosecutors' Act divides prosecutor ranks only into Prosecutor General and prosecutors, appointing a senior prosecutor as a prosecutor at a High Prosecutors' Office is a legitimate transfer, not a "demotion."

However, it is expected that controversy will be unavoidable, as it has been the practice in the prosecution that prosecutors once promoted to the senior prosecutor level continue to hold positions at the level of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office (Chief Prosecutor/Senior Prosecutor) even after receiving demotional appointments in subsequent personnel changes.

There is also the view that a demotion of a senior prosecutor is impossible unless the Presidential Decree, "Regulations on the Scope of Positions for Prosecutors at or Above the Level of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office," which limits the positions for senior prosecutors to 11, is amended.

Researcher Jeong announced on the internal prosecution network "e-Pros" today that he intends to contest the legality of the personnel action.

He wrote, "This personnel action has the potential to clearly violate laws and regulations. I intend to engage in a legal dispute at a very basic level regarding 'compliance with laws and regulations' against the Ministry of Justice."