The Constitutional Court dismissed the impeachment motion against Vice Commissioner Son Jun-sung of the Daegu High Prosecutors' Office on the 17th. All seven judges reached a unanimous opinion. As a result, Prosecutor Son immediately returned to his duties. It has been 594 days, or about 1 year and 7 months, since the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion led by the Democratic Party of Korea on December 1, 2023.
On the same day at 2 p.m., the Constitutional Court made the decision to dismiss Prosecutor Son's impeachment with a unanimous opinion among all seven judges in the main chamber of the Court located in Jongno-gu, Seoul. The Constitutional Court has been operating under a 'seven-member system' since Justices Moon Hyung-bae and Lee Mi-sun retired in April. Recently, the candidate for Chief Justice Kim Sang-hwan, appointed by President Lee Jae-myung, and candidate for Justice Oh Young-jun are preparing for their confirmation hearings.
Earlier, Prosecutor Son was impeached over the 'complaint-solicitation' incident. The 'complaint-solicitation' incident refers to the allegation that former President Yoon Suk-yeol, while serving as Prosecutor General before the 2020 general elections, solicited the People Power Party to file complaints against Yoo Si-min and former Democratic Party lawmaker Choi Kang-wook, claiming they defamed him and his wife.
Prosecutor Son also faced a criminal trial on the same charges. He was indicted in May 2022 for allegedly delivering a complaint against members of the ruling party to former lawmaker Kim Woong, a candidate for the People Power Party at the time, twice. He was sentenced to one year in prison in the first trial, but this was overturned in the second trial, citing insufficient evidence that Prosecutor Son directly sent messages to Kim. In April, Prosecutor Son was acquitted by the Supreme Court, and the suspended impeachment proceedings were resumed. The Constitutional Court conducted hearings on the matter twice in May.
On that day, the Constitutional Court stated, "Prosecutor Son can be assessed as having violated his political neutrality obligation simply by delivering a complaint aimed at influencing the National Assembly elections by denouncing ruling party politicians at the time," but also noted, "There is no justification for dismissal based on the fact that the illegal acts have serious harm on the constitutional order."
The Constitutional Court responded to the National Assembly's assertion that Son violated the political neutrality obligation by collecting information during the 21st National Assembly elections, saying, "It is acknowledged that Prosecutor Son shared election-related files through internal messaging in the investigation information policy officer's office," but added, "There is no substantial evidence that Prosecutor Son used that information to exert undue influence on the elections or engaged in any specific acts that would affect the elections."
The Constitutional Court continued, "There is no evidence that Prosecutor Son specifically instructed the collection of such information, and even if he had given such instructions, it cannot be said that he illegally exercised his authority to make the assigned staff take actions they were not obligated to do."
Regarding the allegation that Prosecutor Son abused his authority by instructing public officials in the investigation information policy officer's office to access and print judgment documents, the Constitutional Court stated, "There is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that Prosecutor Son specifically directed this," adding, "Even if Prosecutor Son received reports on the judgment documents or was involved in the search process, it can be concluded that the judgment documents related to the informant were within the range of information or materials that the investigation information policy officer's office typically collects and manages."
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court found that Prosecutor Son violated some aspects of the Constitution regarding the allegation of delivering judgment documents and complaints to former lawmaker Kim Woong. The Constitutional Court stated, "Prosecutor Son violated Article 4, Section 2 of the former Prosecutors' Office Act, which mandates political neutrality while performing his duties as a prosecutor, and Article 7, Section 1 of the Constitution, which declares the duty of public officials to realize public interest."
However, the Constitutional Court judged that it is difficult to conclude that Prosecutor Son violated the Personal Information Protection Act and the Criminal Act, as claimed by the National Assembly. The Constitutional Court stated, "The records of this case alone are insufficient to confirm that Prosecutor Son sent judgment documents and photos of the first and second complaints to former lawmaker Kim Woong via Telegram. If Prosecutor Son sent these messages to the Prosecutor General and other internal prosecutors, it can be assessed as conveying official secrets learned in connection with his duties to someone entitled to receive such information, so it cannot be regarded as a 'leak' of official secrets."