Is it 'Serial Dismissal' or 'Serial Impeachment' that has returned... Will Yoon's justification for martial law gain strength?

Impeachment motions against Auditor General and Chief Prosecutor dismissed

Unanimous opinion... returning to duty after 98 days of suspension

The Constitutional Court dismissed all impeachment motions filed by the National Assembly against Auditor General Choi Jae-hae and Seoul Central District Prosecutor Lee Chang-soo and three other prosecutors on the 13th. Attention is focused on whether this result will strengthen President Yoon Suk Yeol's claim of 'indiscriminate impeachment' by the opposition party, which he cited as a reason for declaring martial law.

The Constitutional Court announced the results of the four impeachment trials against Auditor General Choi, Chief Prosecutor Lee, Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 4th Deputy Chief Cho Sang-won, and Anti-Corruption Division 2 Chief Choi Jae-hoon around 10 AM that day. With the impeachment motions against all of them dismissed, they immediately returned to their duties. It has been 98 days since their duties were suspended when the impeachment motions were submitted to the Constitutional Court on December 5 last year.

Claims of inadequate and targeted audits all rejected

The Constitutional Court dismissed the impeachment motion against Auditor General Choi by unanimous opinion of all justices. The Court found that while Auditor General Choi had violated the National Public Service Act, it was not a serious violation warranting dismissal. The Constitutional Court Act stipulates that impeachment can only be upheld in cases of 'serious violations of the Constitution or law that can justify dismissal.'

The Court rejected all grounds for impeachment raised by the National Assembly, including allegations of inadequate audit of the Presidential Office and residence relocation, targeted audit against former Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Chairperson Jeon Hyun-hee, and refusal to submit documents requested by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee.

Regarding the National Assembly's claim that Auditor General Choi performed inadequately in auditing the Presidential Office and residence relocation, the Court ruled that "there are no other circumstances indicating an inadequate audit." Regarding allegations of inadequate audit of the construction company selection process, which were added during the impeachment trial, the Court excluded them from consideration, stating they were "reasons not specified in the impeachment resolution."

The Court also rejected claims of a 'targeted audit' against former Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Chairperson Jeon Hyun-hee, stating, "It was a special audit based on multiple reports, including not only personal inspection of the Chairperson but also inspection of the Commission's administrative affairs, making it difficult to conclude that it was an audit intended to pressure the Chairperson to resign." Regarding Auditor General Choi's request for investigation into former Chairperson Jeon's alleged abuse of authority, the Court stated it was "not markedly arbitrary or lacking political neutrality."

Regarding Auditor General Choi's statement at the National Assembly on July 29, 2022, that "the Board of Audit and Inspection is an institution that supports the President's state administration," the Court ruled that "even if parts appear somewhat inappropriate, it can be interpreted as meaning that thorough audits can contribute to smooth state administration" and that "it is difficult to evaluate it as undermining public trust in the independence or audit function of the Board of Audit and Inspection."

Auditor General Choi was the first Auditor General in constitutional history to face impeachment. President Yoon reportedly cited the impeachment motion against Auditor General Choi as a decisive trigger for declaring martial law. National Power Party lawmaker Na Kyung-won previously revealed that President Yoon, while in detention at Seoul Detention Center, said he "could not just stand by after seeing the Auditor General's impeachment."

Prosecutors who decided not to indict Kim Keon-hee return to duty

The impeachment motions against three Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office leaders who decided not to indict First Lady Kim Keon-hee in the "Deutsche Motors stock price manipulation case" were also unanimously dismissed by all justices.

The National Assembly claimed that Chief Prosecutor Lee and others issued a non-indictment decision without properly investigating the Deutsche Motors stock price manipulation case, and spread false information during a press briefing on the investigation results, including that a search warrant for First Lady Kim had been requested but rejected by the court.

Regarding the investigation team's private, undisclosed investigation of First Lady Kim at a third location, the Court ruled, "There could be security difficulties, and considering precedents, conducting the investigation at the Presidential Security Service annex building was not an improper provision of convenience" and that "it cannot be concluded that they abused their investigative discretion." Regarding the decision not to request a convening of the Investigation Review Committee, the Court stated, "This is at the discretion of the Chief Prosecutor, so it cannot be considered an abuse of discretion."

The Court also rejected claims that the respondents failed to collect sufficient materials related to First Lady Kim during the investigation, stating, "About 3-4 years had passed since the investigation began following the complaint, and a considerable time had passed since the market manipulation occurred when each respondent became involved in the investigation, so they may have determined that additional investigation would be unlikely to collect any significant evidence."

Regarding false statements, the Court ruled that "the press reference materials distributed at the time did not contain the false information pointed out in the impeachment resolution." Regarding Chief Prosecutor Choi's briefing statements, the Court concluded, "While explaining the connection between the Deutsche Motors stock price manipulation case and the Kobana Contents sponsorship bribery allegations, there may have been some ambiguity causing confusion, and it is difficult to determine that he clearly recognized at the time that parts of his statement differed from the actual facts, making it difficult to constitute the crime of obstruction of business by spreading false information under the Criminal Act."

Reporter Jang Seo-woo suwu@hankyung.com