The Prosecution’s Decision to Abandon the Appeal
The prosecution has decided not to pursue an appeal in the “Daejang-dong development corruption” case. This case involves allegations that President Lee Jae-myung, while serving as mayor of Seongnam, provided preferential treatment to private developers, resulting in hundreds of billions of Korean won in profits for them. Lee is also facing separate charges and is currently undergoing a trial that remains on hold. The prosecution’s choice to abandon an appeal in such a high-profile corruption case with unresolved issues is unusual.
The court of first instance found Seongnam city officials and private developers guilty of breach of trust and sentenced them to significant prison terms. However, the prosecution’s command structure, including the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, reportedly rejected requests from prosecutors to appeal. They argued that there was no practical benefit since the initial trial had already imposed heavy sentences. While it is generally advisable for the prosecution to avoid mechanical appeals in cases with clear facts where prolonged trials cause unnecessary suffering, this case does not fall into that category.
Unresolved Issues and Their Implications
One of the most critical unresolved issues from the first trial is the exact amount of illicit profits from Daejang-dong that should be returned to the national treasury. The prosecution estimated the damages to Seongnam City at 489.5 billion Korean won. However, the court ruled that precise calculation was challenging and ordered only 47.3 billion Korean won to be confiscated. Private developers are believed to have made hundreds of billions of Korean won through the Daejang-dong project. Prosecutors had intended to focus on this issue during the appeal. By abandoning the appeal, the prosecution eliminated any chance of increasing both the sentences and the confiscation amount. It can be said that the prosecution has created a path for the Daejang-dong defendants to minimize their sentences and live comfortably after serving their terms. They have received judicial favors following real estate profiteering.
President Lee’s Role and Testimonies
The court of first instance did not clarify President Lee’s direct involvement. However, it described Yoo Dong-gyu, former head of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, who oversaw the Daejang-dong project, as a “mid-level manager implementing decisions from the top.” Attention will now shift to testimonies from Daejang-dong defendants regarding President Lee’s role. After the change in administration, some defendants have retracted their statements, claiming they were coerced by prosecutors. The ruling party has called for a national investigation, hearings, and a permanent special counsel to probe the Daejang-dong case. It is reasonable to suspect that the prosecution abandoned the appeal to secure favorable testimonies from private developers. This move was highly irregular and indefensible.
The Role of the Ministry of Justice
A prosecutor handling the case stated, “The Ministry of Justice’s minister and vice minister opposed the appeal.” Acting Prosecutor General Noh Man-seok said, “The prosecution did not file an appeal after reviewing the Ministry of Justice’s opinion.” The involvement of the Ministry of Justice appears undeniable. The justice minister can only intervene in specific cases through investigative command authority over the prosecutor general. Any other form of involvement could constitute abuse of power. The background behind the prosecution’s decision—effectively benefiting corruption suspects—must be thoroughly investigated.
Key Points
- The prosecution’s decision to abandon the appeal in the Daejang-dong case is unprecedented.
- The court of first instance found officials and developers guilty but did not fully address the scale of illicit profits.
- The prosecution’s choice may have benefited the defendants by limiting potential increases in sentences and fines.
- President Lee’s direct involvement remains unclear, and testimonies from defendants are now under scrutiny.
- The Ministry of Justice’s involvement in the decision raises concerns about potential abuse of power.
- Further investigations are necessary to understand the full implications of the prosecution’s actions.