On May 11, as the Supreme Prosecutors' Office (SPO) convened an inspection committee to deliberate on disciplinary action against Park Sang-yong, a deputy prosecutor at the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office, amid allegations of pressuring a witness during the Ssangbangul North Korea project finance investigation, Park is seen entering the SPO's public service office in Seocho-dong to await his turn and answer questions from reporters. [Yonhap News]

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office Inspection Committee was convened on the 11th to discuss whether to discipline Park Sang-yong, a deputy prosecutor at the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office, who is accused of pressuring a witness during the Ssangbangul North Korea project finance investigation, with allegations of a "salmon drinking party."

The SPO began deliberations on Park's disciplinary action at 2 PM that day, continuing for over six hours.

The SPO Inspection Committee is composed of 5 to 9 members, including external figures from the legal, academic, media, and business sectors, as well as internal prosecutors.

The alleged offenses under review include: ▲ bringing alcohol into the investigation room ▲ recorded phone calls disclosed by lawyer Seo Min-seok ▲ repeated summons ▲ insufficient documentation, and ▲ consuming external food.

After waiting for approximately three hours at the SPO's public service office, requesting an opportunity to present his defense, Prosecutor Park was granted an audience with the inspection committee around 5 PM.

It is reported that Prosecutor Park emphasized during the committee hearing that a significant portion of the disciplinary grounds were unproven, and even if proven, they were matters for which no disciplinary action had ever been taken before.

Inspection committee members reportedly questioned Prosecutor Park about who had initiated contact during his phone call with lawyer Seo, who was the lawyer for former Gyeonggi Province Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong arrives at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office [Yonhap News]

Park reportedly responded by explaining that there were instances where lawyer Seo initiated the call, and other instances where he called first, considering that former Vice Governor Lee, as a subordinate, was in a position to report misconduct by a superior.

After completing his statement around 6:17 PM, he emerged and said, "I have faithfully explained parts that differ from the facts," and added, "I was able to feel that procedural safeguards were significantly provided, as they thoroughly reviewed the submitted written opinion."

Prosecutor Park emphasized, "The inspection committee informed me of the charges for the first time today. They explained which charges were problematic, and I provided a sufficient explanation for them," he stated. "I felt indebted to the committee members for providing me with the opportunity to explain, and I even thought that I should repay their kindness by living a faithful life, regardless of their decision."

Earlier, when requesting to attend the inspection committee hearing, Prosecutor Park had told reporters, "I have not been informed at all about what the inspection charges are or how many there are," and added, "I wish to have an opportunity to explain to the external members of the inspection committee with the feeling of beating on the doors of justice."

He argued, "Regarding the salmon drinking party, even the correctional officers standing right next to me did not know about it, and if such an event did not occur, how can it be considered true?" He further claimed, "Disciplinary action based on the results of a polygraph test, which has no evidentiary value, is something that has never happened in the history of the prosecution and is completely inconsistent with legal principles and facts."

He also stated, "If a disciplinary measure is ultimately imposed and I cannot accept its content, I intend to file a lawsuit for revocation."

Park submitted a 50-page opinion to the SPO on the 7th.

Hong Seung-wook, former chief prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, who led the investigation into the Ssangbangul North Korea project, also issued a statement that day, earnestly appealing, "I implore the SPO Inspection Committee to make a fair and cautious judgment, unshaken by political influence from outside."

He added, "A precedent should not be set where a junior prosecutor, who diligently fulfilled their duties with a sense of mission, becomes the subject of inspection and disciplinary action simply because they produced investigation results that are not favored."

During the investigation of the Ssangbangul North Korea project finance case at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, Prosecutor Park is accused of attempting to elicit statements from defendants, including former Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young and former Ssangbangul Chairman Kim Seong-tae, on May 17, 2023, by offering them salmon and alcohol, suggesting that Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party of Korea at the time, was involved in the North Korea project finance.

In relation to this, lawyer Seo Min-seok, who was the lawyer for former Vice Governor Lee, also raised allegations of attempts to influence and fabricate statements by releasing a recorded phone conversation with Prosecutor Park.

In addition, criticisms were raised that Prosecutor Park repeatedly summoned and investigated defendants such as former Vice Governor Lee and former Chairman Kim, and failed to properly prepare investigation confirmation reports.

The Seoul High Prosecutors' Office Human Rights Infringement Monitoring Task Force (TF), which had been investigating these allegations, concluded that a drinking party had taken place at the time and reported this to the SPO, it is understood.

The basis for this conclusion reportedly included corporate card payment records for soju purchased by a former Ssangbangul executive named Park from a nearby convenience store, and the results of a polygraph test administered to former Vice Governor Lee, which showed a truthful response.

However, former Chairman Kim refuted this during his testimony at a parliamentary audit, stating that he did not drink alcohol.

The former Ssangbangul executive, Park, who was identified as the person who purchased alcohol at the convenience store at the time, also denied the drinking allegations, stating, "I bought it for personal consumption and drank it in the car."

The SPO Inspection Committee's decision on whether and to what extent to discipline Prosecutor Park is a recommendation, and the Prosecutor General is not obligated to follow it. However, until now, the Prosecutor General has mostly respected the Inspection Committee's opinions in determining the level of disciplinary action.

It is anticipated that Gu Ja-hyun, the acting Prosecutor General, will decide whether to request disciplinary action from the Ministry of Justice before the statute of limitations for Prosecutor Park's disciplinary action expires on the 17th.

If the acting Prosecutor General requests disciplinary action from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Justice Inspection Committee may further review whether to discipline him, or the Ministry of Justice Disciplinary Committee may immediately decide on the disciplinary action.

Prosecutor disciplinary actions are divided into five levels: reprimand, reduction of salary, suspension, dismissal, and discharge. The execution of disciplinary actions, excluding the weakest reprimand, is carried out by the President, who is the appointing authority, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Justice.

If a judge or prosecutor is dismissed due to disciplinary action, they are prohibited from practicing law for three years.