Controversy Surrounding Chinese Ambassador Jeong Jae-ho Clears Up: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Responds

Ambassador to China Jeong Jae-ho waits to fill the guest book after paying his respects at the Seoul National Cemetery in Dongjak-gu, Seoul ahead of the meeting of heads of diplomatic missions abroad on the 22nd of the month which went / News

It was reported on the 7th that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided that although Chinese Ambassador Jeong Jae-ho (64), who was suspected of “severe abuse” of embassy staff last March, although there were some inappropriate comments. disciplinary issue. The accusations of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which were brought up in connection with the abuse of power, are considered unfounded, and Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yeol is expected to take verbal action to the extent that he asked an Ambassador. Chung to pay attention to ‘workforce harmony’.

Mr. A, a resident officer working at the Korean Embassy in Beijing, reported Ambassador Chung to the headquarters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on March 7, accusing him of abuse of power and violation of the Anti-Graft Act . Mr. A is a resident officer belonging to a ministry other than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr A is known to have said that Ambassador Chung, who was appointed to Beijing in August 2022, made comments that could constitute an ‘abuse of power’ at a training session for resident officials at the start of his consecration, and that he continue. abuse of power by giving him unfair job instructions afterwards.

A. sent, but the embassy does not pay a reasonable price. Ambassador Jeong asked for a face-to-face report, saying that there is no law to report via email to an ambassador in the same embassy, ​​but it is known that Mr. A refused.

Since the 15th of last month, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been investigating Ambassador Jeong, other stationed officials who worked with Mr. A, and the administrative officer of the Embassy in China. However, it was reported that the allegations that Ambassador Chung was involved in abuse of power or violation of the Anti-Graft and Corruption Act could not be proven.

In his first officer training after taking office, Ambassador Chung said, ‘The problem is the officers. He seems to have made an inappropriate reference to the effect of ‘As long as you don’t cause an accident,’ but the views recalled by the officers present are slightly different and it is said it is not a problem that has to be. referred to a disciplinary committee.

In addition, regarding the ceremony of the embassy in China, companies are asked whether to participate, and only companies that want to participate pay​​​​​​for promotional booths to establish and receive compensation as a result of the promotion effect, so it is said that it is not a violation of the anti-graft law. Mr A reported the same to the Civil Rights Commission, the competent authority under the Anti-Graft Act, but the Commission reportedly decided that it was not a breach of the Anti-Graft Act.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also said that it believed that Ambassador Chung’s request for a face-to-face report rather than an email from Mr. A, who works at the same embassy, ​​was a reasonable work order for a subordinate officer. Mr A is known to have claimed there was no legal basis for Ambassador Chung’s order to report in person, but email reporting is said to be unusual in the world of public service.

Therefore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not take disciplinary action or give Ambassador Chung a written warning on his personnel record. However, it is reported that verbal action will be taken to ensure that embassy staff in China will print the documents.