“According to the supplementary provisions of the Public Prosecution Service Act, prosecutors at the Public Prosecution Office are prosecutors at the Public Prosecution Office… Dispatch work is also taken over by the Public Prosecution Office.”
(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Choi Yun-seon = The 2nd comprehensive special prosecutor team Kwon Chang-young announced on the 2nd, the first day of the launch of the Public Prosecution Office, that the dispatch of the existing special prosecutor was valid in relation to the suspension of the trial due to the issue of the identity of the prosecutor dispatched to the special prosecutor team from the existing prosecutor's office.
The special prosecutor's team issued an opinion in a statement this afternoon, saying, "It is reasonable to view the dispatch of prosecutors from the existing prosecutors' office as continued dispatch even if there are no separate transition regulations."
At the same time, Articles 7 and 8 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Public Prosecution Act were cited as the basis for this.
The Special Prosecutor's Team explained, "Article 7 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Public Prosecution Service Act stipulates that 'the prosecutors of the former Public Prosecution Office are regarded as prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Office,' and Article 8 stipulates that 'if public officials of the Public Prosecution Office are cited in connection with affairs that are inherited by the Public Prosecution Office among the duties under the previous jurisdiction of the Public Prosecution Office, the public officials belonging to the Public Prosecution Office are deemed to have been cited.'"
He added, “Accordingly, the dispatching of public officials naturally corresponds to the work being inherited by the Public Prosecution Office due to the abolition of the Prosecutors’ Office.”
On this day, when the Prosecutor's Office was abolished and the Public Prosecution Office took its first step, confusion arose in court over whether prosecutors previously dispatched to the special prosecution could maintain prosecution.
Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Settlement Division 36 (Chief Judge Lee Jeong-yeop) suspended the trial by pointing out, "There is a question as to whether the dispatched prosecutor's attendance is legal. There does not appear to be a clear rule that the dispatch order when belonging to the Prosecutor's Office is valid even if the office changes," during the trial of former Minister of Public Administration and Security Lee Sang-min, former Presidential Chief of Staff Kim Dae-ki, and former Secretary to the President Kim Dae-gi and former Secretary to the President Yoon Jae-soon on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights.
The 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court (Chief Judge Koo Hoe-geun), which is examining Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon's suspicion of paying public opinion poll fees, also said at the decision hearing held this afternoon, "It seems that there may be a problem with the prosecutor's status being changed to the Public Prosecution Office."
Seoul Central District Court Criminal Settlement Division 35 (Chief Judge Baek Dae-hyun) also asked prosecutors dispatched by the special prosecutor Cho Eun-seok's insurrection team during the trial of Liberty and Innovation Representative Hwang Kyo-ahn on charges of inciting rebellion and obstruction of official duties, whether they had received a new dispatch order, and Representative Hwang claimed, "I think we should receive a new dispatch order."
