Seoul High Prosecutor’s Office, ex officio abuse
“I reviewed the law, but it is difficult to admit the charges”
尹 Disciplinary cancellation lawsuit is also advantageous notice
viewer
viewer
Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol was removed from the so-called’judge’s inspection’ charges. The prosecution dismissed the martial arts for the allegations that Yoon ordered the preparation and distribution of the analysis document by the court. As a result, it was evaluated that it was unreasonable for former Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae to pursue the’suspension of duty’ disciplinary action against Yoon on the grounds of a judge inspection charge when he served last year. In future disciplinary cancellation proceedings, President Yun was in an advantageous position.
The Seoul High Prosecutor’s Office announced on the 9th that “the prosecutor general’s alleged abuse of authority was not charged against the’analysis document of the court’.” Regarding the reason for the disposition, the Seoul High Prosecutor said, “The prosecutor general and the prosecutor general acknowledged the charges of the prosecutor general, including the prosecutor general, including the prosecutor general, as well as the facts, and a judicial review such as confirming a number of precedents as to whether or not the alleged abuse of authority was established. It is difficult to do.”
The official name of the controversial court analysis document was’Analysis of Major Special and Public Security Cases’, which made a list of about 30 people, including the judges and judges who were in charge of specific cases. Minister Chu stipulated that it was an illegal inspection, as it contained the judgment of the judges, the contents of the main judgment, and the place of origin. At the time, the Ministry of Justice commissioned an investigation on charges of abuse of authority by President Yun. In addition, Minister Chu held the Prosecutors’ Disciplinary Committee and punished the allegations of illegal inspections with’two months of suspension from President Yoon’.
However, in the course of legal disputes afterwards, Choo’s side lost a row. First of all, the Prosecutors’ Commission of the Ministry of Justice, which was held prior to the Prosecutors’ Disciplinary Committee, concluded that all of Yun’s grounds for disciplinary action were unfair. Subsequently, the Seoul Administrative Court also accepted the request for suspension of execution by President Yoon, who disagreed with the decision to suspend the job of the Ministry of Justice and punishment for two months on suspension. In addition to this, the prosecution’s dismissal of the prosecution resulted in the fourth consecutive defeat.
Regarding the course of the dismissal of the charges, the official of the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office explained, “We conducted an investigation into the people involved in the’analytical documents of the court, including the Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Investigation and Information Policy, and conducted a written investigation of the prosecutor general. As a result of an investigation into the people in charge of document writing, including Sohn Jun-seong, the investigation and information policy officer, it was determined that there was no unreasonable instruction from President Yoon. Policy Officer Son previously said that the disciplinary committee of the Ministry of Justice, etc., did not have the purpose of collecting illegal opinions as well as passing the documents to the front-line office, so it cannot be used as an inspection. It was known that it was all explained. Yoon also said that during the prosecution’s investigation. The Seoul High Prosecutor’s Office said that it was difficult to find even similar precedents in the process of reviewing the law to determine this issue. That was an unusual event.
The prosecution’s decision of non-prosecution is expected to have a significant impact on the main court lawsuit for canceling the punishment of President Yun. Yoon’s side plans to use the decision of non-prosecution as evidence in the defense of the main lawsuit to emphasize the fact that ex officio abuse, which is the reason for disciplinary action, is not established. Some analysts say that the main lawsuit may be dismissed as it is difficult to conclude until July when Yoon’s term ends. However, both President Yun and the legal representative of the Ministry of Justice said, “In case of dismissal, disciplinary action is the same as legally recognized, so the judgment of the court is required.”
/ Reporter Son Gu-min [email protected]
< 저작권자 ⓒ 서울경제, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지 >