[징계 집행정지 법원 결정문 상세 분석]
“Very inadequate” accusations of the court’s analysis
Even if it obstructs the investigation of the Channel A case, “Call the reason for discipline”
“Violation of political neutrality obligation” is “unfair disciplinary grounds”
“The disciplinary committee evasion resolution is illegal”… the decisive reason to win the 尹
Cho Mi-ae (left photo), Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. Hankook Ilbo data photo
There are three main areas in which the court accepted Yoon’s argument when the disciplinary action of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol was suspended on the 24th. The reason for disciplinary action as’violation of political neutrality obligations’ cannot be admitted, there is a’significant defect’ in the disciplinary resolution process, and two months of suspension can be viewed as’irrecoverable damage’. These are the decisive reasons for the citation decision in the case of the request for suspension of execution of the disciplinary action issued by President Yoon, and to give the hand to him.
However, the general evaluation of the legal community is that the court cannot evaluate that it gave Yoon an’indulgence’. This is because many courts pointed out Yun’s inappropriate behavior and responsibility. In addition, most of Yoon’s allegations of illegality, which he had put forward by questioning each disciplinary procedure, were dismissed.
“Judge’s documents, risk of abuse… need additional hearing”
Looking at the 33-page decision released on the 25th, the court criticized Yun, saying, “It is very inappropriate” for the most controversial “major case court analysis document”. Regarding this document prepared by the Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Investigation and Information Policy, the judge said, “A document that summarizes the origins of judges, major judgments (past), opinions, special issues, etc. is at risk of abuse.” “I pointed out. This is the background for President Moon Jae-in, who expressed his apology for the incident, but added a word of check, saying, “I hope there will be no more controversy over collecting and inspecting personal information other than criminal information.”
However, for accurate judgment, the court’s explanation is that an’additional hearing’ through the main lawsuit is necessary. The Ministry of Justice presupposed that’the Office of Investigation Information Policy Office only handles investigation information according to the office regulations, but does not handle information on public property holdings’, but it means to examine how the document was used in actual work. It also acknowledged the need for additional hearings on how to acquire data and the purpose of writing the document.
In this regard, the judiciary expressed doubts on both the sides of President Yoon and Justice Minister Chu Miae. For example, regarding the explanation of President Yoon’s explanation that “the contents of the document can be checked in public data such as the legal office and the Internet,” he pointed out that it is difficult to understand why the document was created by selective collection. On the contrary, regarding the conclusion of the Disciplinary Committee that “it was written for the purpose of making jokes by attacking, slandering, or mocking the court,” he drew a line that “it cannot be admitted with the submitted explanations.
“Channel A case inspection, no reason for interruption”
Regarding the suspicion of’interference with Channel A’s surveillance, the court judged it somewhat unfavorable to President Yoon, saying, “It was called out for reasons of disciplinary action.” The reason for the reason that the prosecution can only be stopped if the measures taken by the prosecution headquarter Han Dong-soo are significantly unreasonable or out of the scope of the duties. All. At the same time, the court admitted that there was room for contention, saying, “It is necessary to have a sufficient hearing whether the purpose of promptly interfering with the inspection and investigation was with President Yun.” Regarding the suspicion of obstructing the investigation of Channel A, he said, “It seems that the case of delegating command to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and turning it over and submitting it to a specialized investigative advisory group is within the scope of the prosecutor general’s investigation and command authority, but it is necessary to further examine the requirements for referral to the advisory group. “The judgment was reserved.
Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol’s court decision by issue of’suspension of disciplinary enforcement’. Graphic = Reporter Moon Joong Kim
“President Yoon’s remarks, various interpretations possible”
The court affirmed that the allegation of’damaging the prestige such as improper words and actions related to political neutrality’ “cannot be seen as a reason for disciplinary action.” When asked about his willingness to participate in politics after he retired during the inspection of the government in October, President Yoon answered, “I will slowly think about how to serve for our society and the people.” It was observed that the Ministry of Justice opened the possibility of entering the political world. This was viewed as a’violation of political neutrality obligations’. However, the judge said, “Various interpretations are possible, such as volunteering through politics, free defense, volunteering through other public offices, and general volunteering.” He also criticized the Ministry of Justice for taking disciplinary grounds based on’presumption’, saying, “It is not the responsibility of President Yun to be mentioned as a leading candidate for the next presidential election.”
“Avoidance resolution is illegal → Disciplinary resolution is also invalid”
The part of the disciplinary procedure that the court has identified as’clear offense’ is the’decision on an application for evasion of the disciplinary commissioner’. Article 17 (4) of the Prosecutor’s Discipline Act states that’a majority of the members present and a majority of the members present will decide whether to challenge it, and the person who has received an application for challenge cannot participate in the resolution.’ Based on this, the judge presupposes that there are seven members of the disciplinary committee, so ‘4 or more’ must be present when evading the decision.
However, when the Yoon’s disciplinary committee, where five members were present in the first place, deliberated on’the common reason for refusal of the two members’, only three members minus the two members. The judiciary pointed out that the decision to evade’unlawful’ was made because it was not able to fill the quorum of 4 votes. For the same reason, the judiciary nailed it, saying, “The disciplinary decision was made under the participation of the members who had been requested to evade, and it was invalid because the quorum was not met. At the time of the disciplinary decision, four people excluding Sim Jae-cheol, the Prosecutor General of the Ministry of Justice, who made the decision to evade themselves, and three of them believed that’the reason for the challenge was not resolved’ due to the previously illegal decision to evade.
Some recognition of’Impossible damages and urgent need’
Nevertheless, it is difficult to interpret the decision of the judiciary as a full victory for President Yoon. The judiciary accepts △Appointment of a disciplinary committee member by Han-Jung Jeong, a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, △Shim Jae-cheol’s avoidance after participation in the decision to evade △The Ministry of Justice’s disciplinary record and list of disciplinary committee members, etc. Did not do it.
Some of the damages and urgent necessities that are difficult to recover, which are the criteria for determining suspension of execution, were recognized. Regarding the fact that Yoon’s term of office will end in July next year, the judge said, “Two months of honesty can be seen as irreparable damage, and the urgent need to suspend execution for prevention is also recognized.” However, other arguments on the side of President Yoon were dismissed, such as’the prosecutor general’s discipline was political retaliation for the investigation of living power’ and’the prosecution’s independence and neutrality were seriously damaged.’ Yoon also said, “Honesty is virtually a dismissal similar to dismissal,” and “If you are honest, you will become the head of the plant.”
Jungwoo Kim reporter [email protected]
Jooyoung Yoon reporter [email protected]
Subscribe to the Hankook Ilbo News Naver Channel
Balance to see the world, the Hankook Ilbo Copyright © Hankookilbo