Why Did the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials Choose Cho Hee-yeon?

[경향신문]

Kim Jin-wook, head of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials / Lee Joon-heon

“A case that the Board of Audit and Inspection has already investigated,” “a case against a relatively weaker agency,” “a case where the defendant that is likely to be acquitted in a court of law,”....

This is how legal professionals and politicians described the case on the questionable recruitment of laid-off teachers by Cho Hee-yeon, superintendent of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, which the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials chose as the target of its first investigation. On May 11, the Corruption Investigation Office remained silent and did not reveal why it chose this case for its first investigation, fueling suspicions. This has triggered criticism that the Corruption Investigation Office is launching an investigation into a case that does not befit the purpose of its establishment, and some in the legal circle argue that the case in question “may be easy to investigate, but difficult to judge.”

The Corruption Investigation Office gave the impression that it would announce its first case around April 30, which marked 100 days since its launch. Kim Jin-wook, chief of the new investigation ffice said, “We cannot call a case we received (from another investigation agency) as our first case,” and hinted that the first case would have some significance. But when press coverage on May 10 revealed that the first case was the case on Cho, which was transferred from the police, an official at the Corruption Investigation Office said, “We are not putting any particular meaning on the fact that it is our first case.”

Since the Corruption Investigation Office launched, it has been engaging in conflicts with the Prosecution Service over the transfer of cases for more than three months, and it has had trouble in recruiting its human resources, such as prosecutors and investigators. So perhaps, the decision on the first case was the result of pressure that officials at the Corruption Investigation Office felt from all this negative media coverage. Since the Board of Audit and Inspection already investigated the basic facts on the case of Seoul’s superintendent of education, the case would not be too heavy of a burden on the new investigative office.

Attorney Kim Jong-min, a former prosecutor, said, “The Corruption Investigation Office, from the initial stages, was at the center of controversy accused of being the Moon Jae-in government’s political tool. So the office may have chosen the case on Cho, whom people believe goes hand in hand with the incumbent government, to silence the controversy.” He also said, “I think they considered the fact that cases connected with the Prosecution Service are much too likely to be politically misunderstood.” More than a few experts believe that the new investigative office “studied the faces of the Prosecution Service and politicians.”

However, there was another view that the case in question was easy to investigate but difficult when applying legal principles, meaning it was likely to be caught up in political controversy. The Corruption Investigation Office is investigating the favors Cho allegedly provided when hiring laid-off teachers with misfeasance in mind. They believe Cho may have abused his authority to interfere with officials exercising their rights. A police representative said, “For a case to be recognized as misfeasance, the perpetrator must abuse his authority and order a public official to perform a task that is not his duty. But a task that is not his duty is usually interpreted as something that ‘violates the procedure stipulated in law.’” He further explained, “In this case, circumstantial evidence suggests that they hired people who were predetermined, but they seem to have followed most of the set procedures.” They need clear proof that Cho instructed officials to select a particular person in the final interview in order to increase the likelihood of the court convicting Cho, but the dominant view in the legal circle is that this is difficult to prove.

Attorney Kim Jun-woo from Lawyers for a Democratic Society said, “I think the latest choice by the Corruption Investigation Office stirred controversy because of the general belief that the first case must lead to a conviction and that an investigation must lead to prosecution.” He further said, “Since this case was reported and the case is not going to be transferred to another agency (because it is politically controversial), I think it is right to handle the cases in order.”

Meanwhile, Han Sang-hee, a professor at Konkuk University Law School said, “This case is not one of corruption involving the abuse of authority, bribery, or election crimes,” and argued, “If the Corruption Investigation Office does not have a case, it should remain still. If they end up not prosecuting this case, it could trigger a debate on its investigation capabilities, but it would still trigger controversy even if they do press charges.” An official from the Prosecution Service said, “The Corruption Investigation Office has been in conflict with the Prosecution Service because it tried to handle easy cases and to interpret the law only to their advantage,” and added, “As long as they take on a case, they should announce a clear conclusion and not make the Prosecution Service determine whether or not to press charges.”