[단독]9 am Cafe is a public gathering? Eo-Joon Kim’s reason for negligence

The controversy is growing as the Mapo-gu Office in Seoul decided not to impose a fine for alleged violations of the quarantine rules of the broadcaster Kim Eo-jun on the 19th. In particular, criticism has been raised from the opposition over the interpretation that Mapo-gu Office interpreted to the effect that’café meetings around 9 a.m. cannot be viewed as private meetings’ at a law firm that received legal advice.

TBS’Kim Eo-Jun’s News Factory’ host Kim and TBS staff and seven people stopped by a coffee shop in Mapo-gu after the broadcast ended on the morning of January 19th. Among them, photos with five people were spread to various online communities, and complaints were also filed at Mapo-gu Office, which is a local ward office.

Mapo-gu, which had been repeatedly reviewed, finally imposed a fine on Kim on the 19th, 59 days after suspicion of violating the quarantine rules of “prohibiting groups of 5 or more” to prevent the spread of novel coronavirus infection (Corona 19). I decided not to. When making this decision, Mapo-gu explained to the media, “As a result of receiving legal advice, it was determined that the imposition of a fine was unreasonable.”

The power of the people, Parliamentarian Park Dae-chul’s office received the results of legal advice from Mapo-gu on the 22nd, which served as the basis for Mapo-gu’s non-imposed fines. According to this, Mapo-gu received advice from two law firms A and B. Both of them were judged to be “exceptions for the application of’prohibition of gathering more than 5 people’.

A Law Firm added, “However, it is necessary to additionally secure specific evidence of whether it was actually impossible to hold a production meeting in the waiting room of the performers on the same day (TBS building), and what content the meeting was held at the cafe.”

B The law firm suggested six reasons for deciding that it was not a private meeting. ① It was a meeting to monitor the broadcast and prepare for the next day’s broadcast ② All attendees are production crew ③ I entered a cafe around 9:10 am, but it is not common to go to a cafe at 9 am for a private meeting. ④ It is unusual in terms of experience to judge that it is a private gathering of 7 people because the time spent in the cafe is very short (17 minutes).And ⑤ meetings are not one-time or accidental, but are always fixed meetings. ⑥ When it is unclear whether or not to apply when disposing of a disposition unfavorable to the public, this was the reason that it should be interpreted in favor of the public.

Reasons ③ and ④ are particularly problematic in the opposition party. This is because going to a cafe in the morning or gathering for a short time is the purpose of seeing it as a public gathering.

The opposition party is also raising questions about the assertion that TBS was in a crowded situation, such as 25-26 of the production crew and cast members already using the performer waiting room, so it was impossible to conduct a meeting in the performer waiting room. An official from the People’s Power said, “If the performers’ waiting room was really crowded, wouldn’t it be possible to have a meeting elsewhere in the building?

Rep. Park Dae-chul said, “The content of legal advice in Mapo-gu is something that cows will laugh,” and “is it a public meeting if you go to a cafe in the morning, or a private meeting if you go in the afternoon?” He added, “It is a go-stop level of squeezing and hitting,” he said. “Mapo-gu should withdraw’Kim Eo-jun’s personalized indulgence’ and impose a fine right away.”

It is also controversial that Mapo-gu Office’s decision contradicts Seoul’sAll. Mapo-gu Office sent a questionnaire to Seoul on January 29 stating, “(Kim’s meeting) is considered to fall under the exception of the ban on private gatherings with more than 5 people.” But The Seoul Metropolitan Government replied, “This meeting is subject to’prohibition of private gatherings for more than 5 people’, and that there is not enough room for this meeting to be regarded as an essential business activity of a company.”did.

There is no basis for the Seoul Metropolitan Government to directly dispose of the fine for negligence while Mapo-gu has already been disposed of. This is because Mapo-gu has the authority to dispose of the fine for negligence under the law.
However, there remains a method for the Seoul Metropolitan Government, a high-level administrative agency, to manage and supervise Mapo-gu. Since Mapo-gu’s decision on the 19th, a petition has been received by the Seoul City Citizens Audit Ombudsman Committee requesting punishment for Mr. Kim. An official from the Seoul Metropolitan Government said, “We are currently looking at the contents of the complaint to assign a department in charge of civil complaints.

Reporter Heo Jin [email protected]