While the second unified special counsel asked the Ministry of Justice to start disciplinary proceedings against Acting Prosecutor General Gu Ja-hyeon and others on the grounds that they refused a request to cooperate with the investigation into the Dec. 3 martial law, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office expressed regret, saying there is no rule requiring it to submit all materials.
The Supreme Prosecutors' Office said in a statement on the 30th that it conveyed its willingness to cooperate if there were a seizure warrant, because arbitrarily providing the inspection records requested by the unified special counsel could violate positive law, including Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Act on Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies (Information Disclosure Act). It said an investigator on the special counsel team also agreed.
The Supreme Prosecutors' Office said, "The unified special counsel argues that, based on Article 6, Paragraph 6 of the Unified Special Counsel Act, the prosecution is obligated to submit inspection materials, but that provision recognizes the special counsel's priority investigative authority over cases subject to investigation and serves as a basis for the special counsel to request the transfer of the case that another investigative agency is currently investigating," adding, "It is not a provision that allows receipt of all materials held by related agencies."
It added, "If Article 6, Paragraph 6 of the Unified Special Counsel Act is interpreted as the unified special counsel claims, there is a very high possibility of violating the constitutional warrant principle."
The Supreme Prosecutors' Office said the Kim Keon-hee special counsel also requested copies of inspection records on Nov. 26 last year and, after prior consultation with the special counsel in the same manner, responded with a confidential official letter and then submitted them under a seizure warrant on Dec. 22 of the same year, setting a precedent.
The Supreme Prosecutors' Office said, "Nevertheless, the unified special counsel claims the prosecution violated relevant regulations and obstructed the investigation, and has requested the opening of disciplinary proceedings against the acting prosecutor general and the chief of inspections at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office; we express regret over this."
Earlier that day, the unified special counsel said it requested investigation cooperation from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, including the submission of related materials, during its investigation into the Dec. 3 martial law, but the Supreme Prosecutors' Office refused. It added, "We have asked the Minister of Justice to open disciplinary proceedings against the acting prosecutor general and the chief of inspections at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, who obstructed the investigation."