Seoul court halts residence-relocation trial over doubts about seconded prosecutors' orders

The 36th Criminal Division, presided over by Chief Judge Lee Jung-yeop, chose a known delay over an unknown risk ^[2]. It moved closing arguments from the 2nd to the 16th, a gap of 14 days ^[5][1], and said what it was avoiding. "If the conclusion is that a new secondment order is required, what we do today could become meaningless," the court said. "There is a possibility the proceedings would be void." ^[6]

The trial itself is about a budget. The special counsel alleges the defendants pressured the Interior Ministry to divert 2.09 billion won of its 2022 budget to 21gram ^[14], for residence work originally budgeted at 1.44 billion won ^[15]. The alleged diversion is about 1.45 times the original budget ^[2]. The team believes 21gram demanded an estimate of about 4.1 billion won without objective grounds ^[16], roughly 2.8 times the original figure ^[3].

The legal gap is narrow. "There does not appear to be a clear transitional provision stating that a secondment order issued under the former prosecution service remains valid after the change in affiliation," the court said, adding that "no such provision appears to exist in the special act, the special counsel act or the Criminal Procedure Act either." ^[4] Its preferred fix was to "obtain a secondment order under the new Public Prosecution Office." ^[7] The special counsel team led by Kwon Chang-young said that order is out of its hands. "This is not something the Public Prosecution Office can do on its own. We understand it requires presidential approval as a matter of prosecutorial personnel decisions," the team said. ^[8]

So for the next two weeks, the team's effort in this case goes into an approval request inside government. It said it was consulting through the Ministry of Personnel Management and "we were told it may not be resolved in a short time" ^[9]. It also said "it is taking time to request and win approval for the secondment internally." ^[10]

The clean outcome is that the president approves new orders before the 16th, closings go ahead, and the abolition has cost one trial two weeks. Approval could also slip past the 16th, as the team's own account of its talks allows, leaving the trial waiting on the presidential office. The outcome with the widest reach is that new orders arrive but do not reach back. Sedaily reported that it is unclear whether a renewed secondment would apply to proceedings already held ^[13]. In that case, by the court's own reasoning, hearings run since the change under old orders could be void ^[6].

The courts did not move together on day one. Other special counsel trials, including one over allegations that Kim Keon-hee intervened in the relocation, proceeded as scheduled ^[12]. "Other divisions have also discussed this, but nothing has been decided yet," the court said. ^[11] Sedaily expects the issue to surface in other special counsel trials ^[17]; so far, one has stopped. I think the larger exposure sits with the divisions that kept hearing these cases, if seconded prosecutors appeared before them under old orders, because the retroactivity question lands on hearings that have already happened. The view is wrong if new orders arrive before the 16th and are accepted as covering what came before. Then the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office has cost one courtroom 14 days ^[1].