Former Acting Prosecutor General No Man-seok has launched his own law practice after resigning amid the Daejang-dong development scandal appeal controversy last November. Confirmation arrived on March 19 that the judicial research and training institute 29th class graduate completed his lawyer registration and began operations.
Prime Location in Seoul’s Legal Hub
No secured a private office in one of Seoul’s premier Seocho-gu districts, near the education complex, marking his swift transition to independent legal work. He registered with the Seoul Bar Association well in advance and wasted little time establishing his solo setup within weeks.
Distinguished Prosecution Career
No entered public service in 2000 as part of the 29th judicial trainees cohort. His roles included special divisions in Gwangju and Incheon, the second division at Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, and investigation team leads at the Ministry of Justice. Following Yoon Suk-yeol’s appointment as Prosecutor General, promotions led him to Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office chief, before assignments in Jeju, and specialized units in major crimes and organized crime at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office.
Officials later named him chief of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Investigation Office, where he oversaw key cases.
The Daejang-dong Appeal Waiver Fallout
Last November 7, controversy erupted when prosecutors waived an appeal in the Daejang-dong development corruption probe, sparking public outcry. No, then acting Prosecutor General, faced intense scrutiny.
On November 9, he declared, “The Daejang-dong case does not involve collusion between Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ chief and Ministry of Justice officials to manipulate the headquarters.” Seoul Central chief echoed similar sentiments in response.
Five days post-raid, during a November 12 press briefing, No dismissed allegations: “What appears as a job transfer is not suspicious.” Though no formal structural issues surfaced in the hearing, he emphasized, “Many follow-up prosecutors’ statements, combined with cross-checks against private firm records, reveal deep concerns over ‘private-public collusion.’ Yet, determinations remain cautious due to insufficient evidence, leaving some matters unresolved.”
