[비즈한국] Controversy is spreading as a senior prosecutor has come forward with a "whistleblowing" disclosure regarding the prosecution's decision to drop the case against Coupang as "no suspicion." While the senior prosecutor claims that the "no suspicion" decision was incorrect, the superiors he identified as having intervened argue that "there were no issues." Legal experts comment, "Companies hire law firms to handle cases, and the firms create legal justifications tailored to each rank of prosecutor to persuade them. The fact that this surfaced during the parliamentary audit suggests that this process failed."
Senior Prosecutor Exposes "Superiors' Unfair Intervention in 'No Suspicion' Decision"
On the 15th, Prosecutor Moon Ji-seok of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office attended the National Assembly's Environment and Labor Committee audit of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. In a trembling voice, Prosecutor Moon, holding back tears, revealed his position on the "Coupang subsidiary case." He alleged that while he was working at the Bucheon Branch of the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office, he investigated a case where Coupang's subsidiary, Coupang Fulfillment Services (CFS), failed to pay severance to daily workers, and claimed that there had been "unfair intervention" from his superiors.
In January, the Ministry of Employment and Labor referred the case to the prosecution with a recommendation for indictment, but within three months, the prosecution concluded there was no suspicion and dropped the case. The core issue of the case was whether Coupang’s modification of its employment rules—which made it difficult for daily workers to receive severance pay—was illegal. Prosecutor Moon claims that during this process, his superiors provided a "no suspicion guideline" and omitted key evidence to support it.
Explanations from Identified Superiors
Um Hee-jun, the former head of the Bucheon Branch, and Deputy Chief Prosecutor Kim Dong-hee, who were named as the superiors, also protested. On the 17th, Prosecutor Um stated, "The lead prosecutor expressed the opinion that it was difficult to indict in the Coupang case, and after hearing that, I said that if that was the lead prosecutor's opinion, we should review similar cases well and wrap it up quickly." He countered, "Prosecutor Moon filed a complaint requesting punishment, claiming I abused my authority by providing a 'no suspicion guideline' because I exchanged opinions with the lead prosecutor, but I never gave a unilateral or coercive order for a no-suspicion decision while ignoring the lead prosecutor's opinion."
Regarding the claim that "they bypassed him (Prosecutor Moon) as the senior prosecutor," they argued, "In early March of this year, to hear Prosecutor Moon Ji-seok's opinion on the Coupang case, I called Deputy Chief Kim and Senior Prosecutor Moon to the branch chief's office to discuss how to handle it," adding, "At that meeting, Senior Prosecutor Moon also agreed to process it as no suspicion."
Regarding the allegation that Deputy Chief Prosecutor Kim Dong-hee tipped off a lawyer named Kwon from Coupang about a search and seizure, they explained, "Deputy Chief Kim has never had a family gathering with lawyer Kwon, and the fact that their children attend the same school is merely a coincidence due to mandatory school assignment." Deputy Chief Prosecutor Kim also posted on the prosecution's internal bulletin board, refuting the claims by stating, "17 cases with the same issues were closed during internal investigations, and there has never been an indictment."
A Misstep in Law Firm Strategy?
Kim & Chang Law Office is representing Coupang, and legal experts are commenting that the current controversy is a "misstep in response by the law firm and Coupang."
Normally, when companies are under investigation for major cases, they provide legal justifications containing their stance to the lead prosecutor, senior prosecutor, deputy chief prosecutor, and chief prosecutor (district head level). This is because it can become a problem if any one of them holds a different opinion.
In the specific case of Coupang, the prevailing view is that Coupang's argument—that there is no obligation under current law to pay severance to daily workers and that those who filed the complaint were typical daily workers—is "sufficiently convincing." Because of this, critics say, "Rather than asking for a quick 'no suspicion' decision, they should have logically persuaded the senior prosecutor who held a different opinion."
A lawyer who previously served as a deputy chief prosecutor explained, "In many large corporate cases, the lawyers who draft the company's defense logic are different from those who deliver it to the prosecution or courts. Eventually, while Coupang's lawyers prepared good logic, they failed to persuade the crucial senior prosecutor in charge, which is why the issue exploded during the parliamentary audit."
He added, "Originally, when the opinions of superiors and the working-level staff differ, the superiors can make decisions based on their authority. While the decision-making process itself may not be problematic, it seems the issue arose because the case was processed too quickly, within three months."
Ultimately, following Prosecutor Moon's testimony at the audit, Coupang Fulfillment Services CEO Jung Jong-chul responded that he would "change the criteria back to the original" regarding the contentious issue of severance pay for daily workers. A lawyer who is a former district prosecutor pointed out, "Considering similar case precedents, the explanation that it was processed as 'no suspicion' is closer to the prosecution's typical response. However, if it becomes this controversial, won't the damage return to the company and the law firm? It doesn't seem like the issue will escalate during internal audits, but this case demonstrates how significant the prosecution's power to decide on indictments and non-indictments truly is."