"The police officer conspires with the suspect and closes the case with no charges. When the prosecution requests a re-investigation, the police officer divulges investigation secrets to the suspect and the suspect's lawyer and discusses how to respond together. The case is again closed without charges."
The police officer's 'unjust transaction', which seems to have been seen many times, actually happened in Busan last year.
A police officer who was supposed to investigate and punish a crime tried to make the case 'nothing happened' by collaborating with the suspect.
Fortunately, this 'unjust transaction' was revealed through the prosecution's investigation and the full picture was revealed.
Envelope with money saying "Please help me with the election campaign"... 'no charges'
Enlarge Image
The gist of the case is as follows.
In 2021, Mr. A, the president of a university in Busan, decided to run one year ahead of the Busan Superintendent of Education election.
And for the election campaign, Mr. B, who is well known in Busan, is recruited as the general manager of the election camp.
In return, he gives about 53 million won in exchange for campaigning to raise awareness through internet promotion.
This is illegal.
This is because our election law stipulates that money and other valuables cannot be provided in connection with the election campaign, except for the provision of allowances and actual expenses stipulated by the law.
After (Public Official Election Act Article 230 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 4)
, university president A gave up running, but the Busan Election Commission requested a police investigation into the above charges in May of last year.
The case was assigned to the Busan Nambu Police Station and Inspector C will be in charge.
Mr. B, the general manager who became the suspect, submits an opinion to Inspector C that this case does not constitute a crime.
Then, Inspector C, reflecting the opinion of Mr. B, the suspect, made a decision not to send the university presidents A and B as 'no charges' in September of last year.
The case was closed without further investigation or sent to the prosecution.
The prosecutor requested a re-investigation, but... Again 'no charge'
However, when the prosecutor who took over the records looked into it, it was strange.
Looking at the facts, it seems that the violation of the election law is correct, but the police just made a decision with 'no charges'.
I just narrowly interpreted it as "not related to the election" without doing anything other than fighting the law.
The prosecutor asks the police to re-investigate.
According to the Criminal Procedure Act revised in 2021, prosecutors can request a re-investigation to the police only once when there is a good reason.
Would the police have reopened the investigation?
Surprisingly, after only a week, Inspector C's reply was "no charges".
Despite the prosecution's request for a re-investigation, there was no sign of a re-investigation.
In fact, he ignored the opinion of the chief prosecutor and repeated the decision not to send him.
Now the prosecution can't stand still.
Prosecutors' search... 'Illegal transaction' revealed in recording files
Enlarge Image
A direct investigation by the prosecution has begun.
According to the law, if a police officer maintains the decision not to send the case despite the prosecution's request for re-investigation, or if the charges are clearly acknowledged only by the records sent or in violation of the law, you can request the case to be sent.
A large-scale search and seizure was conducted against Mr. A, the former university president, and Mr. B, who worked at the election camp.
It is said that financial transaction analysis, such as account tracing, was also conducted to determine whether money was exchanged.
It took only about a month for the truth of this case, which the police had concluded twice as 'not guilty', to be revealed.
In addition to the fact that former university president A gave 53 million won in money and valuables to B, it was additionally revealed that cash and red ginseng liquid were handed over to another man.
On November 30 last year, the 3rd Criminal Division (Chief Prosecutor Song Bong-jun) of the Busan District Prosecutor's Office's Dongbu Branch handed them over to trial for violating the election law.
The investigation did not end there.
In such a soon-to-be-discovered case, I had to figure out why Inspector C had given a 'not guilty' decision twice.
The bare face of the 'unjust transaction' that was almost buried was revealed as the 'conversation recording file' of the parties secured through the search and seizure.
The fact that Lieutenant C called the suspect, Mr. B, informed him of the prosecution's request for a re-investigation, and discussed the response method was contained in the recording file.
Consultation with the police officer and the suspect's lawyer on how to respond
The whole story of the 'unjust transaction' revealed by the prosecution's investigation is like this.
In the first investigation, Inspector C, who accepted the opinion of suspect B as it is and concluded 'no charges', calls Mr. B again when the prosecution requests a re-investigation.
Then, the prosecutor requested a re-investigation, what the prosecutor's opinion is, and the details of the re-investigation request and the deadline are as follows.
We don't just deliver, we discuss how to respond together.
All of this is subject to investigative confidentiality.
Inspector C does not stop here and calls Mr. D, a lawyer close to Mr. B.
He further informs us of the circumstances of the investigation and discusses countermeasures.
Even though Mr. D was not officially appointed and was not qualified to defend.
Prosecutors, who secured all of the recordings of this conversation through seizure and search, handed Inspector C to trial on the 12th on charges of leaking official secrets.
It has nothing to do with the changed system... Side effects of 'abolishment of investigative command authority'?
Enlarge Image
Fortunately, this incident was revealed through the efforts of the chief prosecutor, who considered the incident strange, but the aftertaste is not refreshing.
This is because the situation and background in which this 'unjust transaction' could have occurred is not irrelevant to the changed legal system.
In the past, the judicial police officer should have investigated the case and forwarded the case to the prosecution, that is, with an opinion of indictment or non-prosecution whether it was judged to be guilty or not.
In the middle of the investigation, I was also under the direction of the prosecution.
This is because of Article 196 of the former Criminal Procedure Act, which stipulated the prosecutor's right to command investigations, saying that 'judicial police officers are under the direction of prosecutors in all investigations'.
However, the prosecution's right to command investigations was abolished with the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act in January 2021.
As a result, the police have the authority to close the case on their own without sending it to the prosecution.
Of course, as in this case, the records are sent, but there is no need to report or review the case in detail as before.
In the case of this case, this is the background that Inspector C was able to arbitrarily close the case with 'not guilty' by listening only to the suspect's opinion.
Request for re-investigation by the prosecution only once... 'Lack of investigation' There is no way even if there is suspicion
Like this case, the prosecution may ask the police to re-investigate, but there are limitations here as well.
This is because, as explained earlier, a re-investigation request can only be made once.
As you can see in this case, there is no duty that the police must follow.
The police who received the request for re-investigation only need to 'notify' the prosecution about the result.
You don't even have to send records.
This is why Inspector C had the 'guts' to send the same answer within a week even after receiving a request from the prosecutor for re-investigation.
Again, like this case, if the police come to the same conclusion, the prosecution can request the transfer of the case, but this is also not possible at any time.
Strict restrictions apply.
According to Article 64 of the 'Regulations on Mutual Cooperation and General Investigation Rules between Prosecutors and Judicial Police Officers', which was implemented in accordance with the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act in 2021, the prosecutor may request the transfer of the case despite the results of the police re-investigation.
1) Violation of the relevant legal principles, 2) Clearly violating the law on collection of evidence to the extent that the results of the sent documents, evidence, and re-investigation alone can be brought to trial, or 3) If there is an error in determining the statute of limitations or the requirements for criminal prosecution, these three You can only ask for it to be sent within 30 days.
It's tricky.
It means that if the prosecutor doesn't look closely at the case or pay attention, it can be overlooked.
Even 'the investigation was not properly carried out', that is, in the case of a lack of investigation, it is not even the subject of the request for transfer.
In this case, it was a case where a violation of the law was suspected without needing to examine it carefully, and Inspector C could have closed the case sloppily without even reviewing it properly and requested a transfer. There is no way for the prosecution to re-investigate the case even if it is suspected that it did not.
Anticipated side effects... 2nd and 3rd illegal transactions must be prevented
Enlarge Image
In fact, concerns about these side effects have already been raised two years ago.
At the time, there were many controversies and concerns about the revision of the law, which was made in order to adjust the investigative powers of the prosecutors and police on a large scale.
It is not possible to generalize the deviation of one police officer as the fault of the entire system, but it is undeniable that this case is a case in which the many concerns and side effects raised at the time were 'realized'.
It was possible because the system had changed.
Prior to 2021, Inspector C would not have been able to just close the case as 'not guilty'.
In the investigation stage, you may have had to look into the criminal facts and legal aspects a little more under the direction of the prosecutor.
It would have been difficult to ignore the prosecutor's request for re-investigation like this time, and above all, it would have been difficult to think of only receiving and writing down the opinions of the suspect and the suspect's lawyer.
Of course, there are more police officers on the scene who are more conscientious than Inspector C, and who handle cases in principle without the prosecution's investigation direction, but it is always cases like this that muddy the water and reduce the trust of the organization.
I do not intend to repeat the story of the investigation authority and the investigation command authority here.
But what is clear is that such an unfair trade can happen again.
And it is also an undeniable fact that the way to find and punish such unfair transactions has become narrower than before.
The controversy over the authority to command the investigation is a long-standing discussion, and there was a logic of refutation by the police, but most of the refutation logic has focused on whether the prosecution is a quasi-judicial agency or whether the law revision is unconstitutional.
But to the average citizen, it's not that desk discussion that's important.
These are the side effects that happen in the field.
Two years have passed since the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law.
If these side effects are repeated, there will definitely be words to revise the system again.
Not for prosecutors or police.
It is because this social system and the majority of good citizens are ultimately harmed when an unfair and unfair trade is repeated.