[정치]Yoon Seok-yeol returns to the post of president after 8 days… decided to suspend’two months of honesty’

■ Progress: Song Kyung-cheol anchor
■ Cast: Kim Seong-hoon / Attorney

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information.

[앵커]

As I told you, the 12th division of the Seoul Administrative Court’s administration of the two-month suspension of the Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol accepted part of the request for suspension of the enforcement of the effective disciplinary action that Yoon has filed against Justice Minister Chu Miae. Let’s talk with lawyer Kim Sung-hoon.

First of all, according to the breaking news a little while ago, it is said that they will go to work from tomorrow. Will the court’s decision take effect immediately?

[김성훈]

Now that the decision to suspend the effect was made, there was an order to withdraw from the job at first. Wasn’t there an honest disposition this time? The effect of the disposition of suspension ceases. Literally, then, since you are no longer in an honest state, it can be said that you can return to work and work right away.

[앵커]

Interrogation took place twice. Today the court came to a conclusion fairly quickly. First of all, can you briefly explain what the court has made?

[김성훈]

Basically, there are a number of requirements in this case of suspension of execution, precisely the case of the decision to suspend the suspension of suspension. The most common requirement is irreparable damage. So, whether the person who received this disposition suffered irreparable damage from this and there is an urgent need to stop this disposition right now is put on one scale. The other balance is placed on the other to see if there is any irreversible damage to public welfare if this disposition is stopped. You can judge these two by comparing them.

In addition to the judgments and irreparable damages, these are discussed in the Supreme Court case. The possibility of winning the main lawsuit should also be considered. In short, if this is clearly stated that the disposition is legitimate and there is nothing illegal in the main lawsuit, in fact, there is no need to suspend the effect, so that part should be considered as a passive requirement.

Unlike the previous job exclusion, in this case, the term of office ends in July in fact, so the fact that two months of suspension before that date can be very important and in effect close to dismissal, and the court has this disposition in accordance with the original draft. We also made considerable psychological and consistent judgments on four of its own procedural defects, substantive defects, and disciplinary reasons.

In addition, in some cases, the judgment is not a ground for disciplinary action. In the case of a dispute in the main lawsuit prior to judging no, this part is likely to be completely canceled because the disposition in the main lawsuit is judged to be illegal. I have this. In the main lawsuit, no, the disposition may be judged legitimate. When we look at these two cases, when we look back on which case is more irreversible, and when we look at the public interest and which side is right to lose, there are room for disputes for this court. If there are many parts, it can be seen that the decision was made to suspend the validity of the suspension because the decision was made that it was necessary to make an explanation and judge on it after having sufficiently quarreled in the main lawsuit in a state of suspension.

[앵커]

Today’s conclusion is that the three judges, Judge Hong Soon-wook, Judge Kim Jae-kyung, Kim Eon-ji, and these three judges proceeded to the consensus department in the 12th minute of the Seoul Administrative Court, right? This is a form of consensus. How did it proceed?

[김성훈]

As a result, the interrogation was conducted twice. According to the interrogation, it is unfortunate to choose what the issue is in the judgment of this case. In particular, the court proceeded once more and asked each of the seven issues to be presented. I saw it through the data provided, and as a result, it seems to have taken that into account in the judgment.

If possible, look at the procedural and substantive defects and the reasons for disciplinary action quite a bit, but in the end, if so, see which of them could be contested in the main lawsuit, and in the end, these two points, if the result of the main lawsuit. A can come out and B can come out. Considering the number of cases in two cases, this is more procedurally and legally judged to be correct according to the principle of the rule of law in a state where this effect is suspended It was decided whether or not.

In the end, for that reason, he clearly stated that the obligation to neutralize politically among the four reasons for disciplinary action was not recognized, and there could be quite a problem with the remaining three matters, but on the other hand, the respondents and applicants argued about the reasons for disposition. There is room to see, but once you are honest for two months right now at this stage, you will lose the chance to fight, so we have decided to suspend the effect even to ensure this.

[앵커]

Then, in the future, will the main lawsuit continue to proceed as the main lawsuit?

[김성훈]

That’s right. The suspension of execution does not mean that there is no main lawsuit. This decision is literally until the decision of the main lawsuit is decided, until the decision is made, because if there is no main case lawsuit and if the case is withdrawn, it will be lost. That is why it is highly likely to continue.

Another possibility is to appeal the decision to suspend. It is called an immediate appeal. It seems that there is a high possibility that you will appeal again to judge it again. If so, there is a possibility that the appeals court will make its own decision on this matter.

[앵커]

If that is the case, then, if the Justice Department appeals as soon as possible, will the process be followed immediately?

[김성훈]

Yes. Interrogation dates and decisions are made at a much faster rate.

[앵커]

It’s still completely over. It’s a difficult situation to see like this. Earlier, don’t you say that the judge sent seven questions to both sides? There was a first interrogation, and it will be yesterday. There was a second interrogation. What are the 7 main questions?

[김성훈]

Most representatively, the incident can be seen as two main parts, and the main part related to this suspension. When judging from the suspension of effectiveness, there are two major issues: whether there is an irreparable damage and an urgent need, one that is not against public welfare, or whether it is against public welfare.

Apart from that, in this disposition itself, procedural defects are repeatedly asserted, but in the end, we finally see what opinions and explanatory data exist on the contents related to the procedural defects and the reasons for the disciplinary claim. I saw a total of 7 related contents.

Last but not least, one of the parts that played an important role in this decision when I saw it was the part where I asked what things I would like to discuss in the future in the main lawsuit. In the case of the original suspension of execution, basically, rather than judging all of these reasons in full, when it became a dispute in the main lawsuit in the future, even if this person was overturned as illegal in the main lawsuit, later Since the judgment is made in consideration of the case in which the damage cannot be recovered and the opportunity to fight this is not lost, even if it is not possible to judge all of the contents that are going on in the future, it has been judged through considerable hearing and only then acknowledged that there are reasons for disciplinary action. There seems to be a part to judge those parts by considering the fact that it is more desirable to be honest or excluded from the job.

[앵커]

Regarding today’s decision, is there any correlation that could predict the main lawsuit?

[김성훈]

There are a few. For example, in the case of irreparable damages or public welfare, it is not directly related to the main lawsuit, but the procedural defects and the four substantive judgments among those judged now are not bound by themselves, but they are highly likely to be reviewed.

First, among the four reasons, there is a part that has explicitly decided on the violation of the political neutrality obligation and judged that it is not possible for this part, so this part may be similar or may be significantly affected by this part. It is not exactly the same in the procedural part, but it is possible that the standards will be set the same in some parts.

One of the problems now is that there are parts related to the challenge. Basically, the quorum is considered to be 4, but if you apply for a challenge to 3 people, then the rest of the people excluding yourself should do it. In a little way, it’s a matter of arithmetic, so the same procedural flaws are likely to be pointed out in this area.

[앵커]

As you mentioned earlier, it seems that you have emphasized a lot of the point that the keyword that was sharply opposed this time on both sides is an irreparable damage to Yoon. The Ministry of Justice has a lot of public welfare. I emphasized a lot, could you explain the posture of that part?

[김성훈]

That part was fiercely contested, but the press release on the reason for the decision is very short. First of all, when it comes to irreparable damages, the last decision to withdraw from the job also made its own judgment. It came out briefly at that time as well. What is it is that the term of office is guaranteed until July, and there may be a political question about what is irreparable damage to being honest for only two months during that term. Secondly, there was a legal dispute over whether irreparable damages should be regarded as such damages, not as damages as individuals and as a single person.

The Ministry of Justice continued to insist that this part of the prosecutor general’s performance is not the part of the loss as a cause of death. Here, President Yoon said that this is also a subject of significant irreversible damages, and both the decision to suspend execution of the previous order of exclusion from work and the decision to suspend the effect this time are irreversible damages. In other words, even for one day in office, the order to withdraw from job was shorter.

In this decision, the same was seen in this decision as to the facts that failing to serve during the original term, even for a few days, are important damages, and the concept of irreparable damages is irreversible even if later compensated with money, or as irreparable or irreparable damages by the parties. .

Lastly, there was a very fierce dispute over public welfare. In particular, the Ministry of Justice said this. As I mentioned earlier, there are two things on the scale, irreparable damage and public welfare. If so, the Ministry of Justice said that if the disposition is suspended, a very large division of national opinion will occur and the disciplinary power will be restricted. I said this.

What I mean is that the applicant and President Yoon are responsible for explaining whether there is any irreparable damage. On the contrary, if this is suspended, the Ministry of Justice has to make a statement about the fact that it will cause a huge impact on public welfare.

However, in this regard, the Ministry of Justice submitted an opinion that various investigations were conducted unfairly, the duties of the prosecutor general were harmed, or political investigations could be conducted as the prosecutor general. It can be seen that you didn’t decide that way.

[앵커]

Yoon’s side submitted three written materials by 2:15 am yesterday, and there was such a report. What were the main contents? Were there any materials that were urgently needed until dawn?

[김성훈]

First of all, wasn’t it very short from the first date to the second? That is why I would have summarized the 7 reasons in detail. In this case, it is usually made several times. Because it can be done too late after trying to get it all sorted out at once, and in some ways, the judge may not be able to see it. Probably the most centrally focused areas I think are particularly procedural.

Regarding irreparable damages, there are parts that were judged consistently in the decision of the last job exclusion order, so there is more procedural defect than that part. Because the judgment on procedural defects can be made much simpler than judgment on the four substantive reasons, there is a high possibility that you want this part to be particularly accepted. I think there will be a part that has been targeted by considering that part more intensively.

[앵커]

It is said that the Ministry of Justice also submitted three documents. The key point is that there is probably no flaw in the disciplinary process, wasn’t it an emphasis on these areas?

[김성훈]

That’s right. That’s why the Ministry of Justice is in a defense position. I would have talked about the results of the disciplinary action, the composition of the disciplinary committee, how the disciplinary committee proceeds, and especially the attitudes toward avoidance and avoidance applications. One of the most important parts is that the Justice Department would have continued that talk. In the case of a job exclusion order, Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae did.

However, in this case, the suspension was approved by the president, so unlike the last time, there is a part that received approval from the president, who is the person with the right to appoint the person in charge of personnel, and if such things are suspended in the court, a great confusion will arise. It is inevitable that there will be very controversy over the prosecutor general’s disciplinary procedure, and as a result, it seems impossible to expect things that the prosecution itself does according to the existing administration’s control and policy.

However, in the end, the decision has not yet come out, but when you look at the contents, at least for this court, these reasons are a little short, and in our view, this alone goes against our public welfare, beyond the irreparable damages at the time. It is difficult to say that there is such a strong part of the company, and the fact that it is a somewhat abstract level of concern can be seen as expressing such a position.

[앵커]

And since 12 o’clock has passed, it will be the day before yesterday. Wasn’t there a trial against Professor Kyung-Shim Chung? The results of the trial have been made on the case of illegal entrance examinations and the fund-related suspicion. It is a part of what influence each other has had on this decision. How do you see that?

[김성훈]

At first, there would have been no direct impact, either legally or legally. However, I think there could have been some psychological influence or influence on the whole background of the arguments of logic. This is why, basically, on the side of General Yoon, especially on the side of Mr. Yoon’s defense, he has repeatedly argued that the disciplinary proceedings against the Prosecutor General had a very political purpose. In a word, I also talked about the media like that, and I talked about it in both the pleadings and the disciplinary process.

What is the point is that the current government’s key figures and investigations targeting the current regime were eventually viewed negatively by the current government and continued to argue that all these procedures were carried out as a punishment in some way. . Then, back to the principle, there was an interesting expression in an article about the sentence yesterday.

There was such an expression that it was the beginning of all this. In a word, then, whether the investigation and prosecution were appropriate at the time, and on the contrary, whether it was a political target investigation, or whether it was about a reason that the judiciary could admit, with considerable reasons and grounds of its own, one in all these backgrounds. It can be the basis of the judgment of the last trial, however, in this trial, the claim that, in any case, basically, as a majority of them were recognized as guilty, at least a completely unreasonable and politically biased prosecution was made, and that they did absurd things. There are some parts that are a little too difficult to do.

I think there is a possibility that the court may not have acted as an argument that the court disapproved of those concerns that such a part would not have a direct effect, but at least if we return to this part again, we will investigate with an unreasonable and political purpose.

[앵커]

Now, after the administrative court’s judgment came out, I’m also curious about the wavelength. As it comes out as a quotation, what kind of prediction can you make?

[김성훈]

Actually, this is a legal decision. It is an administrative legal area, but in fact, hasn’t it been a political debate that is far beyond the realm of law? Eventually, both sides are arguing. As a result, this investigation and all the processes were accused of being very political and very politically aggressive, especially against the current government.

On the contrary, if so, there was a story that various disciplinary claims against President Yun and the pressure to resign were also political pressures. In conclusion, then, a decision was made according to one legal process and procedure of this disciplinary procedure. How do you view the court? With the powers separated by the separation of powers, based on this decision, there is a problem in that part, at least enough to proceed with this two months of honesty right away, even if it is not completely illegal and absolutely wrong.

It seems to be very embarrassing to the Ministry of Justice, who demanded disciplinary action, which was strongly driving this, in that it showed a reserved attitude in that it had to stop and watch the lawsuit in the future. In the end, I think that all the controversies related to this, all the controversies related to Yoon, the controversy related to the move, and the controversies related to attitude are also in such a situation that they are bound to be amplified again rather than settled by this decision.

[앵커]

The Japanese people also do not know how to accept it. Now, there are 320,000 petitions against the disciplinary action against President Yun. There are 320,000 opinions that severe punishment is required. Similarly, the number of petitioners is being counted. How do we understand, today’s decision?

[김성훈]

I actually understand the hearts of the people who make the petition. But what I have as a conviction and our constitutional spirit is a democratic republic, in the end, through judicial procedures, evidence, defense rights, and various systems, I carefully examine this part, argue and argue with each other, and argue there. Therefore, if a decision is made, it is fundamental to respect each other as much as possible. In that respect, there are some areas of concern when it comes to all judgments, all decisions, all prosecutions, or all dispositions being a political issue.

Now, of course, this decision itself is not something that creates a political interpretation of everything right now, but after this decision, a little bit coldly about each process, isn’t everyone coming to a conclusion in a way? In fact, the constitutional spirit that we have is that everyone can slowly watch how each procedure proceeds before concluding, and accordingly, pay attention to the consequences and deliberate on the reasons. I think it would be nice if we could go to culture. It is very difficult to do so and the conflict has become so sharp, but rather, it is a wish as a lawyer that it would be nice if we could make that part in the process of solving this issue.

[앵커]

I asked all the important questions. I’ll ask one or two questions and finish. There are many things to say about the subject of the lawsuit, but did President Yun Suk-yeol file the lawsuit this time as a natural person rather than the president? And the other thing is that the defendant is not the president, but the minister, Chu Mi-ae. How do I understand that part?

[김성훈]

Basically, it is the claimant, so the applicant is correct as an individual Yoon Seok-yeol. However, it is true that you are still the prosecutor general because your status is honest. So, in a word, there is a part that applied for this part as a sign of this disposition for this part, but the content of the disposition is honesty in the end, and the irrecoverable damage referred to in honesty is the part of the damage to property as an individual. Rather, there is a part that claims the damage part in the official and public part of the prosecutor general, so it can be seen that this is a little mixed.

I think who the other person is can be a little political question. Because in principle, the disciplinary committee makes a request for disciplinary action, and the disciplinary committee makes a decision, and the Ministry of Justice makes the decision, but the president also takes home. Literally speaking this in reverse, you can’t do it again without the president withholding home. In a political sense, I think this might be about the president. However, strictly speaking, I think there is a part that can be considered that it is not necessarily such a view of the president and the president vs. Yoon Suk-yeol.

[앵커]

Until the end, I initially thought it would end with an interrogation on the 22nd, but wasn’t it concluded on the 24th because it was postponed for two days? What do you think this part has worked for as meaning, and consequently?

[김성훈]

In general, I think that this would have been a little more advantageous to the applicant, that is, to President Yoon. It was a very political burden. In this case. So, at first, interrogations, interrogations related to suspension of execution, and interrogations related to suspension are usually finished at once. It is common for the decision to come out right away, but after looking at it for so long, especially during the wording of the court, in the case of this case, one of the words actually has some influence equivalent to the main lawsuit, so I said that I should take a look at such content. In a way, wouldn’t this case have a political part?

Now, there was such a view that it would be very burdensome for the judiciary to stop or do this because it is only two months of suspension, not dismissal, and it is not dismissal, and it will be very burdensome to do this. I thought I was saying that I would do it, but I thought that I was throwing a message through continuation that I would just judge this part as the judiciary in a way, without considering such a political burden or in this part.

So, even at the time, when there were such questions in private, I thought that there was a little more possibility of making judgments that considered only the legal aspects of this part. In that respect, in this respect, only the very procedural and legal parts, in a way, the rest of the political part, especially the parts related to such a political issue, which is the core of the prosecution’s neutrality and independence, are only those parts of this part as an evaded lawyer. I think there is a part that makes a decision by dividing the level of judgment and who made the call or not.

[앵커]

We appreciate your professional advice until late. thank you.

[김성훈]

Thank you.

[앵커]

Until now, I was attorney Kim Sung-hoon.