An incumbent prosecutor has publicly questioned the qualifications of a nominee for a high-ranking prosecutorial position, raising concerns for a second consecutive day. The prosecutor, who currently heads the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office, stated that he would appear before the National Assembly’s legislation and judiciary committee as a witness or attendee if summoned to discuss the nominee’s background.
Prosecutor’s Persistent Scrutiny of Nominee
The prosecutor, Im Eun-jeong, detailed her objections in a social media post on the 18th. She expressed that the questions and concerns she raised the previous day regarding the nominee’s handling of past cases remained unaddressed. Im specifically called for clarity on whether the nominee, Kim Ji-yong, had exercised his right to object during the investigation into the alleged illegal departure ban of a former Justice Ministry official, Kim Hak-ui.
Im’s criticism directly challenges statements made by Kim Min-jae, a Vice Minister of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, during a press briefing. Kim Min-jae had explained that objections were only recently being recorded in the Criminal Information System (KICS) and that directives and decisions were not always documented in writing. Im refuted this, asserting that such records should exist for significant cases.
Discrepancies in Record-Keeping Claims
Im Eun-jeong pointed to specific directives issued by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office concerning the process of prosecutorial objections and the recording of directives and instructions during investigations. These directives, she argued, mandated the creation of records for any objections or instructions, especially in cases of differing opinions. She cited the Channel A incident and the Kim Hak-ui departure ban case, both occurring after 2018, as examples where such documentation should have been preserved.
“If nominee Kim had expressed a dissenting opinion, it should not solely remain in his memory,” Im stated. “According to the relevant directives, records, including objection forms and other documents, should exist.”
Furthermore, Im questioned the confirmation process described by Vice Minister Kim Min-jae. The Vice Minister had stated that the nominee himself had confirmed the details. Im found it questionable to refer to this as a “re-confirmation” when it was merely a verification with the nominee.
Willingness to Testify Before the Assembly
Im Eun-jeong concluded her statement by expressing her readiness to appear before the National Assembly’s legislation and judiciary committee if summoned. “If the committee summons me as a witness or attendee, I will faithfully appear and frankly convey my concerns regarding the prosecution’s internal and external affairs,” she pledged.
Nominee’s Aspirations and Background
The current scrutiny comes as Kim Ji-yong is slated for a potential promotion to a senior prosecutorial role in October. He has recently applied for a special appointment as a prosecutor and investigator at the senior level, a position he has expressed interest in since the end of last year.
The controversy highlights the importance of transparency and accountability within the prosecutorial system. The public’s attention is now focused on how the National Assembly will address these allegations and whether the nominee will be able to provide satisfactory explanations regarding his past professional conduct and the handling of significant cases.
