All Members of JU Investigation Team Likely To Be Investigated

Regarding the suspicion that Prosecutor Baek of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors` Office coerced a suspect to make false statements during the investigation of the JU Group case, a special inspection team has initiated a detailed analysis of a CD obtained from KBS, the first media agency to report the case, which contains a recording of a conversation between Prosecutor Baek and the suspect, Kim.

The special inspection team also obtained the investigation record of the JU Group case from the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors` Office and is examining the overall investigation procedure.

Investigation on all Members of Investigation Team Hinted-

The special inspection team has decided to summon and investigate a JU supplier, Kang (47•female), who sued Prosecutor Baek and a superintendent public prosecutor, Kim, in the Supreme Court, and a former executive of JU Group, Kim (40), who claims to have been forced to make false statements, as plaintiffs on February 8.

The team is also considering whether to carry out supervisory inspection against all members of the investigation team, concerning accusations that some members of the investigation team, other than Prosecutor Baek, attempted negotiations with Kim on a plea bargain (a system in which the suspect is given a reduced sentence on the condition that he or she admits guilt).

The inspection team also plans to investigate into the possibility of negligence of guidance and command by superintendent public prosecutor Kim and assistant prosecutor general, Lee Chun-seong, who comprised the commanding line at that time.

The special inspection team has received the CD containing a 25 minute recording from KBS, but is also attempting to secure all of the files, running five to six hours and recorded with the pen-recorder, in order to grasp the overall story of the case.

The team is also revising the measure to obtain the recorded files by force through a search and seizure, or other measures, in case Kim and Kang refuse to cooperate in handing over the entire recording.

Punishing the Prosecutor Not Easy-

Even if a full scale inspection is carried out it will not be easy to impose judicial measures on the prosecutor concerned, based on the extent of the conversation revealed so far.

First of all, since Kim did not sign the written evidence at that time, it is difficult to apply the charge of drafting forged documents, even if the false statement request is found to be true. Nor is it possible to apply graft or the misuse of authority since there were no physical attacks or insulting words involved.

The charge of inciting a false statement only applies to court testimonies and cannot be applied to this case which arose during the investigation procedure.

Controversy on Ignorance in the First Petition -

It was found that Kang, who raised the initial suspicion of the forced false statement, handed in a petition to the Supreme Court in early December last year saying that “the investigation team is demanding false statements by force,” but the Supreme Court sent the case to the investigation team of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors` Office and closed it within a week.

Kang and those at his side are contending that they suffered retaliatory investigation because of this. But the Supreme Court says, “It is normal to send petitions complaining not on the unlawful facts in the investigation procedure, but on the method of investigation, to the investigation team concerned. [The Supreme Court] took the legitimate procedures in this case by notifying the prosecutor in charge of the contents of the petition and attaching the petition and the transaction records as evidence.”

Meanwhile the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors` Office decided to postpone its decision on the first trial of Joo Soo-do, chairman of the JU Group, along with those of other relevant persons which were planned for February 12.

The judiciary said, “There was no other way but to postpone the decision since the prosecution amended the written arraignment on the swindled amount. It is irrelevant to this case.” But with the new variables it seems inevitable that the progress of the trial will be impeded.

woogija@donga.com gaea@donga.com