Why was the first lady not indicted?

The prosecution should be able to convince the public of the results of its investigation.

The Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office on Thursday reported to Prosecutor General Lee One-seok about the results of its investigation into first lady Kim Keon Hee’s acceptance of a luxury handbag from a suspicious pastor two years ago. The prosecutors’ office decided to not indict the first lady, as expected, citing no grounds for indictment. The prosecution based the decision on “no clause on punishing spouses of public office holders in the Anti-solicitation and Graft Act” and “no relevance to the president’s job.”

The case exposed by the Korean American pastor may have been planned earlier with a malicious motive. But the first lady’s acceptance of the expensive handbag from a mysterious pastor is a highly volatile issue. President Yoon’s emotional approach to the case without making an apology only fueled public suspicion.

The prosecution deepened the controversy by dragging its feet in probing the case after a civic group accused the first lady to the top law enforcement authority. At the order of the prosecutor general, the prosecution hurriedly launched an investigation team in May. But senior prosecutors calling for an aggressive investigation of the case were suddenly replaced. Lee’s remarks that no one is above the law could represent a move to summon the first lady to the prosecution for questioning, but prosecutors questioned her at a separate office and didn’t report it to Lee. Could the prosecution’s decision to drop the case convince the general public?

Legal controversy also remains. The prosecution explained that the first lady’s act is unrelated to the president’s job. But legal experts define the scope of presidential job as being broader than what the prosecution says. The pastor also said he asked the first lady to help Kim Chang-joon, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, to be buried at the National Cemetery after death. But that question was not answered, either. Other lawyers cite the need to apply the law on taking bribes in return for influence peddling to the case. But the prosecution concluded that a solicitation was not delivered to the president. We also don’t know whether the prosecution conducted a search and seizure of the presidential residence or looked into their phone records.

Given the prosecutor general’s emphasis on fairness, the prosecution needs to hold an experts’ meeting to review the conclusions of the prosecution despite the room for conflict with the presidential office. The prosecution should be able to convince the public of the results of its investigation. The law enforcement authority must prove its impartiality through actions. Otherwise, the opposition will increasingly demand the appointment of a special prosecutor to clear all the doubts.