On Aug 29., the Constitutional Court of Korea unanimously dismissed the National Assembly’s impeachment motion against Lee Jung-seop, a prosecutor at the Daejeon High Prosecutor’s Office. The motion, led by the Democratic Party of Korea, was based on allegations of misconduct. Since the impeachment bill was introduced in December of last year, Prosecutor Lee had been suspended from his duties for around nine months. Following the court’s decision, figures from the legal and political spheres criticized the Democratic Party, saying, “The party should stop attempting to impeach prosecutors investigating its members, such as Representative Lee Jae-myung, on flimsy grounds.”
All the accusations brought forward by the Democratic Party against Prosecutor Lee were rejected by the Constitutional Court. These allegations were initially raised by former Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Eui-kyum during a National Assembly audit of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in October last year. The Democratic Party cited six reasons for impeachment, including accusations of covering up his brother-in-law’s drug investigation, offering hospitality to high-ranking executives of conglomerates, facilitating golf course reservations for colleagues at a course owned by his in-laws, and having pre-trial contact with a witness in the case of former Deputy Justice Minister Kim Hak-eui.
However, the Constitutional Court stated, “Some allegations lack specific evidence and cannot be considered related to the prosecutor’s official duties.” The Court further noted, “We do not render judgment on claims that fail to meet formal legal criteria, such as the alleged facilitation of golf course reservations owned by the prosecutor’s in-laws.” Regarding the pre-trial contact with a witness in the Kim Hak-eui case, the Court added, “There is no evidence of improper solicitation or coercion, and no laws or regulations prohibit pre-trial witness interviews.” The Court concluded that most of the allegations were either vague or not actual legal violations and thus did not provide sufficient grounds for impeachment.
Some judges did express separate opinions, stating, “While some of the allegations may constitute legal violations, they are not severe enough to justify dismissal.”
Reacting to the Constitutional Court’s ruling, a lawyer and former chief prosecutor remarked, “The Democratic Party’s repeated failures to impeach prosecutors are driven by an attempt to hinder their duties based on unfounded allegations.” A member of the ruling party commented, “It is evident that the Democratic Party has been using impeachment as a political tool,” adding, “Ultimately, the National Assembly’s legislative power was wielded as a shield to obstruct the investigation into the party leader.”
