Red card for prosecution

Sex-for-leniency argument for wanton prosecutor doesn’t hold

Questions have been raised over whether it is proper for the prosecution to bring “bribery” charges against a trainee prosecutor for allegedly having sex with a suspect in return for favors in an investigation.

The public expressed bewilderment over why the prosecution has continued to refer to bribery, despite a court’s refusal to issue an arrest warrant for him on such charges.

It is said that prosecutors have been caught in a self-contradiction while attempting to hastily deal with the case amid public criticism: They say the woman provided bribes but will not face punishment — a decision contrary to the law — because she is also the victim of a sex offense — a charge they are not even applying.

On late Tuesday, prosecutors filed a second request to the Seoul Central District Court for an arrest warrant for the 30-year-old prosecutor, surnamed Jeon, on charges of accepting bribes.

He allegedly performed sexual acts with the suspect in his office earlier this month while investigating her in a theft case, and had sex at a motel three days later.

The second request came only a day after the court rejected the first one saying the evidence presented didn’t constitute bribery.

“For a bribery charge to be applied, it should be proved that the sexual intercourse was made in exchange for influence peddling. But the prosecution’s investigation records were not enough to prove it,” Judge Wi Hyeon-seok said.

In the second request, however, prosecutors still didn’t have specific additional evidence to back up the “bribery” allegation.

Lee Jun-ho, chief of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office inspection team, said, “Circumstances show Jeon hinted that he could lower the penalty for her. In their conversation which she recorded at the motel, she asked him how she can make an agreement on compensation with the store where she stole goods. It shows the sex was in return for influence peddling.”

But an official of the court said, “If a warrant is sought again, there should be changes. It is absurd to request a warrant, which was rejected a day before, without additional evidence.”

Another contradiction is that if Jeon is charged with accepting bribes, the woman is recognized as provider of kickbacks. According to the law, both the receiver and provider of bribes are subject to punishment.

But prosecutors said although she provided a “bribe,” they won’t punish her because she is also a victim of a sex offense through the abuse of authority.

“We couldn’t charge him with this because he and she signed an agreement not to disclose the issue, and she did not file a complaint,” Lee said.

But some law experts say the agreement may be invalid.

“It seems the agreement was coerced by Jeon. In that case, the agreement is nullified,” Lawyers for a Democratic Society said in a statement.

“If the victim has post traumatic stress disorder, it can be recognized as an injury through sexual assault, a charge which can be applied without a complaint from the victim. So, the agreement alone cannot be the decisive factor in whether this was a sex offense,” it added.

“Through this case, the prosecution should reflect on its investigation practice that is authoritarian and discriminatory against women,” the group said. <The Korea Times>