Constitutional Court Unanimously Dismisses Impeachment of Son Jun-seong in 'Prosecution Service' Case... 'No Grounds for Justifying Dismissal'

[Financial News] The Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the impeachment of Son Jun-seong, Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Daegu High Prosecutors' Office (Chief Prosecutor), who was accused in the 'Prosecution Service' case.
The Constitutional Court dismissed the National Assembly's impeachment motion against Chief Prosecutor Son on the afternoon of the 17th with a unanimous opinion of all seven judges. As a result of this decision, Chief Prosecutor Son will immediately return to his duties.
The Constitutional Court stated, "Although some of the respondent's conduct in office violated the Constitution and laws," it also noted, "It is difficult to consider that it reached the level of depriving the public trust indirectly granted to the respondent, so it cannot be said that there are grounds justifying the respondent's dismissal."
Earlier, the National Assembly passed an impeachment motion against Chief Prosecutor Son in December 2023. Chief Prosecutor Son was impeached on the grounds of exchanging complaint images and real-name judgments with Kim Woong, then a candidate for the National Assembly from the Future United Party (predecessor of the People Power Party), via Telegram while serving as the Director of Investigation Information Policy at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office ahead of the 21st general election in April 2020.
The Constitutional Court found insufficient grounds to determine that Chief Prosecutor Son actually delivered or directly controlled the complaints related to the 'Prosecution Service' allegations. The court stated, "There is no objective evidence that the respondent controlled or continuously checked and managed how the real-name judgments or the first and second complaints were used or through what route they were actually utilized," and "There is no clear link between the respondent, Kim Woong, and the Future United Party."
Additionally, considering that △the first and second complaints were not submitted to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office before the April 2020 general election and △the existence of the complaints was not disclosed to the public or used in the election through media reports, the court judged, "It is insufficient to view the respondent as having violated the law with an active intention to contravene the legal order."
However, the court pointed out that Chief Prosecutor Son's act of sending 'real-name judgments and complaint photos' violated the obligation of political neutrality.
The Constitutional Court criticized Chief Prosecutor Son's actions, stating, "The authority of state institutions was used for the benefit of specific groups such as the prosecution, rather than for the benefit of the entire public," and "Considering that such actions alone can undermine the trust in the prosecution as a servant of the entire public, the illegality is not insignificant."
The Constitutional Court resumed the hearing last April after suspending it while awaiting the results of the criminal trial, which began with the first preparatory session in March last year, and concluded 1 year and 7 months after the impeachment motion was passed.
Meanwhile, Chief Prosecutor Son was sentenced to one year in prison in the first trial of the related criminal case, but was acquitted in the second trial, and this ruling was confirmed by the Supreme Court last April. 

scottchoi15@fnnews.com Choi Eun-sol Reporter