The court has begun deliberating whether to halt the effect of the personnel order for Prosecutor General-level official Jeong Yumi (30th class of the Judicial Research and Training Institute), who was reassigned to a Vice Administrator/Director General prosecutor-level post, sparking controversy over a "de facto demotion." Jeong argued that "an unprecedented unlawful personnel action has caused irreparable harm," while the Ministry of Justice countered that it was "a lawful transfer within the scope of discretion."
The Administrative Division 5 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Lee Jeong-won, Director General judge) held a hearing on the 22nd for the injunction request filed by Jeong. An injunction is a procedure that temporarily halts the effect of a disposition until the ruling in the main administrative suit is finalized.
Appearing without legal counsel that day, Jeong argued that the transfer was "a measure that violates the law" and "a highly unusual personnel action that is historically difficult to find precedent for." Regarding the personnel grounds presented by the Ministry of Justice through press releases and other materials, Jeong emphasized its unfairness, saying it was "a personnel action carried out because of an individual's expression of opinion."
For an injunction to be granted, there must be an urgent need to prevent irreparable harm, and it must not significantly affect the public interest.
Jeong cited relocation and the move of living base due to the change of workplace as harm, arguing that once transferred to Daejeon, the harm would be fixed regardless of the outcome of the main suit. Jeong added that even if not assuming the post at the Daejeon High Prosecutors' Office, there would be no clear harm to the public. Jeong also asserted that the revelation of the unusual personnel action damaged reputation.
In response, the Ministry of Justice argued that, regarding the article of the Prosecutors' Office Act cited by Jeong as the basis for illegality, the regulation on postings for Supreme Prosecutors' Office-level prosecutors is merely a definitional provision and does not mean that appointment to a specific post is mandatory. The ministry also contended that personnel orders fall within the discretion of the appointing authority.
The Ministry of Justice also noted that the post Jeong uploaded on the internal prosecutors' board "E-pros" could hardly be seen as a mere expression of opinion and used derogatory and contemptuous expressions toward superiors. As for the requirements for an injunction, the ministry argued that it does not constitute irreparable harm, citing that public officials typically relocate every few years, and that there are virtually no cases where an injunction has been granted against a personnel order for a public official.
The court organized the issues by noting that whether this measure—appointing a Supreme Prosecutors' Office-level prosecutor to a High Prosecutors' Office prosecutor—substantively constitutes a demotion could be a point of contention. The presiding judge said, "We will first examine only whether the requirements for an injunction are met and will reach a conclusion within two weeks."
On the 11th, in a senior personnel reshuffle at the Ministry of Justice, Jeong was transferred from a research fellow at the Legal Research and Training Institute to a prosecutor at the Daejeon High Prosecutors' Office. As Jeong moved from a Supreme Prosecutors' Office-level prosecutor (prosecutor general-level) to a High Prosecutors' Office prosecutor (Vice Administrator/Director General prosecutor-level) post, the legal community inside and outside characterized it as a "de facto demotion."
There is also an interpretation that this was a disciplinary-type personnel action against Jeong, who has voiced critical opinions on major issues such as the separation of investigation and indictment powers, the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office, and the decision to forgo an appeal in the Daejang-dong development scandal.
Jeong argues that, based on the presidential decrees "Regulations on the scope of posts for Supreme Prosecutors' Office-level prosecutors and above" and "Article 30 of the Prosecutors' Office Act," it is unlawful to appoint or transfer a Supreme Prosecutors' Office-level prosecutor to a High Prosecutors' Office prosecutor. The Ministry of Justice maintains that under the Prosecutors' Office Act, prosecutors' ranks are classified only as "prosecutor general" and "prosecutor," and that this measure is not a demotion but a lawful change of post.