The government is said, as of the 16th, to be strongly considering reassigning all chief prosecutors who engaged in collective action after the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office forwent an appeal against the first-instance verdict in the Daejang-dong case to posts as rank-and-file prosecutors. It is also reported to be discussing three tracks: an investigation for violations of the State Public Officials Act, duty inspection, and disciplinary measures. While reassignment to a rank-and-file post is not an unfavorable measure under the Prosecutors Office Act, it is seen as an attempt to normalize the prosecutorial practice of having treated the chief prosecutor position like a rank through personnel demotion.

An official in the ruling bloc said in a phone call with a reporter that “measures against all prosecutors who engaged in collective action, including criminal punishment, inspection·discipline, and reassignment to non-chief-prosecutor posts, are being reviewed within the government.”

Within the government, there is said to be agreement that the backlash that surfaced inside the prosecution, including the posts jointly signed by the heads of the 18 district prosecutors offices nationwide and 8 branch chiefs on the internal network on the 10th after the decision to forgo an appeal, must be dealt with strictly to establish public-service discipline.

To that end, the government is said to be weighing investigations premised on criminal punishment, including violations of the State Public Officials Act, and even a probe into Prosecutor Kang Baek-shin, who served on the second Daejang-dong investigation team, for violating the prohibition on divulging official secrets in the course of duty.

Options under discussion also include initiating disciplinary procedures through duty inspection and reassigning chief prosecutors·deputy chief prosecutors to rank-and-file posts. A complaint has already been filed with the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials against the 18 chief prosecutors and other prosecutors accused of ‘insubordination’, and because civil service inspection and personnel measures can be implemented at any time, there is a possibility that all of the measures under review will proceed in parallel.

The measure the government is most strongly considering is personnel action reassigning the chief prosecutors who engaged in collective action to rank-and-file posts. Under Article 6 of the Prosecutors Office Act, prosecutors are classified only as the Prosecutor General and Prosecutor, so reassignment to a rank-and-file post is not an unfavorable measure. However, within the prosecution service it can only be taken as a personnel demotion. The plan is interpreted as using a de facto disciplinary tool by imposing a personnel measure akin to demoting a general-grade commander in the military to the rank of private.

A ruling-bloc official said, “transferring a chief prosecutor to a non-chief-prosecutor post is not discipline but a reassignment, so it is the lowest-level response” and “this is an opportunity to correct the wrong internal practice of having treated the chief prosecutor as a kind of rank.”

There is precedent: in March 2007, former Judicial Research and Training Institute planning director Kwon Tae-ho (chief prosecutor grade) was demoted to a rank-and-file prosecutor after being implicated in a lobbying case. Kwon filed a suit to revoke the personnel order, but the court recognized the discretion of the appointing authority, and in 2010 the Supreme Court finalized a ruling against the plaintiff.