Kim Seong-dong, who leads the inspection division (at prosecutor general level) within the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, voiced worries about an investigative group established inside the prosecution as requested by the Prosecution Human Rights Respect Future Committee and the Prosecution Future Committee, both operating under the Ministry of Justice. He remarked, "It's hard not to question if this was intended to bypass the responsibilities of the inspection department." The tasks carried out by this investigative unit coincide with those handled by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's inspection section and the human rights policy officer, despite being set up without input or guidance from these respective units.
As per the prosecutor’s office, on the second day, Kim published a statement entitled "Inspection Responsibilities and the Rule of Law" on the internal prosecutorial system (e-Pros) on the first day. He stated, “Removing the guidance and supervision of the relevant department brings up concerns regarding the principle of the rule of law.” Referring to the Prosecutor's Office Act and the presidential order named “Rules for the Organization of the Prosecutor's Office," he highlighted, “Inquiries about improper conduct among prosecutor staff are managed by the chief inspector, whereas issues related to human rights breaches are overseen by the human rights policy official. Thus, matters assigned by the Minister of Justice must be addressed by either the chief inspector or the human rights policy officer to adhere to legal provisions and regulations."
Concerning the structure of the investigative group, Kim stated, "The team leader was allegedly an individual who previously worked as head of a prosecutor's office within the Ministry of Justice, and the establishment of the team was overseen by the same ministry." He further mentioned, "This casts questions on the impartiality and objectivity of the team, highlighting the importance of cooperation with sections from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office."
Kim also mentioned, "The investigative group was established without any protests or demands for transfer from the head of the inspection division or the human rights policy officer, potentially breaching internal guidelines." He cautioned, "Broad interpretations should not be used in inspection activities," and noted, "This goes against the legislative purpose of safeguarding the position of the inspection department head and could jeopardize the required submission of significant inspection matters to the review panel."