Legislation to establish the Office of Public Prosecution and the Major Crimes Investigation Agency in October was finalized in the National Assembly on the 21st, led by the Democratic Party of Korea. This provides the legal basis for new criminal justice organizations that will separately handle indictments and investigations into major crimes, replacing the Supreme Prosecutors' Office which will be abolished under the revised Government Organization Act. The prosecution's authority to direct and supervise special judicial police officers has been abolished, and a clause prohibiting abuse of power has been newly established. Furthermore, by specifying "dismissal" as a disciplinary offense for prosecutors, it is now possible to dismiss a prosecutor without impeachment proceedings. The photo shows the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 22nd.  [Photo=Yonhap News]

On the 25th, the JoongAng Ilbo published an article titled "The prosecution would have survived if only Kim Keon-hee had been arrested," prominently featuring statements from three former Prosecutors General.

They referenced the Deutsch Motors case, stating, "She should have been arrested then," and "The prosecution collapsed due to that single decision." The article concludes that the cause of the prosecution's downfall lies in the failure to make a specific judgment.

However, this report begins by skipping a crucial question.

In criminal cases, the key is not arrest, but proof. Arrest is not possible if the suspicion of a crime is not substantiated.

Despite this, the JoongAng Ilbo prioritizes the question, "Why wasn't she arrested?" instead of, "Why couldn't it be proven?"

This question distorts all arguments.

In criminal proceedings, arrest is not the outcome. It is a limited measure that is only possible when conditions are met. It is permitted only when suspicion of a crime is substantiated and there is a risk of flight or destruction of evidence.

Therefore, the essence of an investigation is always 'proof.' The decision of whether to arrest is a subsequent matter.

However, the JoongAng Ilbo reversed this order.

It changed the issue of proof into the issue of arrest. And upon this improperly framed question, it piled the statements of former Prosecutors General.

Ultimately, the reader is led to one conclusion: "She should have been arrested then."

It is at this point that the statements of the former Prosecutors General emerge.

However, these statements are less independent judgments and more responses to an already established question structure. If the question is political, the answer inevitably becomes political.

The essence of the Deutsch Motors case has already been settled.

The decision was made to not indict due to insufficient evidence to prove collusion, and the case was provisionally closed. Whether this judgment was sound can be criticized. However, the starting point for such criticism should be, "Why wasn't it proven?"

Despite this, the debate has proceeded in an entirely different direction.

"Why wasn't she arrested?" This question substitutes legal judgment with political outcome. It is a question that demands symbolism, not proof.

The expression 'The Three Enemies of the Prosecution' is a product born from this flawed question.

It is a structure that criticizes the prosecution not for failing to make a legal judgment, but for failing to produce politically expected results.

Therefore, we cannot help but ask again.

Was it truly their judgment that shook the prosecution? Or was the problem the question structure itself, as set by the JoongAng Ilbo?

To find the true 'Three Enemies of the Prosecution,' one must look not at the content of the statements, but at the starting point of the frame.

We must consider whether it is the question, which erases the legal standard and demands political outcomes, that is shaking the prosecution.

The law is slow and inconvenient. However, the moment we cannot tolerate that inconvenience and demand political speed, the rule of law collapses. And it always begins with a distortion of the question.

This report by the JoongAng Ilbo is a typical example of that.

While it appears to be a critique of the prosecution, it actually posed a question that drags the law into politics. Regardless of the answer that arises from that question, the conclusion was already predetermined.