South Korea’s Constitutional Court on March 13 unanimously rejected the impeachment motions against Choe Jae-hae, chair of the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI), and three prosecutors, including Seoul Central District Prosecutor Lee Chang-soo. The Court explained that Choe’s legal violations were not serious enough to remove him from office. It also stated that the prosecutors involved in the investigation into first lady Kim Keon-hee’s alleged stock manipulation of Deutsch Motors did not violate the Constitution or laws. As a result, all four officials returned to their positions after 98 days of suspension due to the impeachment process.
The Democratic Party-led National Assembly introduced the impeachment motions on December 3 last year and passed them within three days. Lawmakers accused Choe of conducting politically motivated audits targeting the Moon Jae-in administration while failing to properly investigate the relocation of the presidential residence, which was linked to first lady Kim. They also claimed that Choe weakened the independence of the BAI by changing rules to give the prime minister the authority to request audits. The prosecutors were accused of delaying the investigation into Kim’s stock manipulation case and misleading the media when announcing their decision not to indict her.
In its ruling, the Constitutional Court maintained that the BAI’s independence had not been harmed, emphasizing that while the Prime Minister could request audits, the final decision on audits remained with the office. The Court also rejected claims that the investigation into Kim Keon-hee’s stock manipulation was inadequate, ruling that no constitutional or legal violations had occurred.
However, the Court found that Choe had violated national civil service and parliamentary testimony laws by changing the BAI’s electronic document system and refusing access to committee meeting records. Yet, the violations were deemed insufficiently severe to justify impeachment.
Separate opinions were expressed by Justices Lee Mi-son, Jung Jung-mi, and Chung Kye-sun, who believed that the amendment granting the Prime Minister audit request authority was unlawful. Despite agreeing with the final conclusion, they raised concerns about excessive administrative interference.
The Court also dismissed allegations of misconduct by the three prosecutors, asserting that there were no constitutional or legal violations or abuses of discretion. Regarding the investigation of Kim Keon-hee, the Court found that conducting the investigation at the Presidential Security Service office was not improper preferential treatment. It also ruled that the prosecutors were not legally obligated to pursue additional investigations, as there was insufficient evidence to warrant further action.
However, the Court noted that the use of Kim Keon-hee’s accounts in the stock manipulation scheme had been confirmed during the investigation and questioned whether the prosecutors had sufficiently investigated or supervised the case, given that key evidence such as text messages or computer records had not been obtained.
During the impeachment trial, the prosecutors argued that the National Assembly’s charges were unclear and that its impeachment power had been misused, so the case should be dismissed. However, the Constitutional Court disagreed, ruling that the process followed legal procedures and that the prosecutors’ actions were serious enough to warrant review. The Court also said that even if political motives were involved, this did not mean the impeachment power had been abused. It added that the charges were clear enough for the prosecutors to defend themselves and for the court to review properly.
