![[단독]Could it be grounds for impeachment? How did you make the key disciplinary ‘Judge Document’?](https://newsimg.sedaily.com/2020/12/26/1ZBU2UORVQ_9.jpg "[단독]Could it be grounds for impeachment? How did you make the key disciplinary ‘Judge Document’?")
viewer
“I am responsible for illegal inspection of the judges in the major cases”
(On the 24th of last month, Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae announced a request for disciplinary action by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol)
“Collecting and distributing personal information of judges who have a lot of potential to be abused to attack, slander, or make ridicule by spreading a bad image based on the judge’s past judgments or actions”(Summary of deliberation and resolution on the’two months of honesty’ disposition by the Disciplinary Committee on the 16th)
“The court took two reasons for disciplinary action against Yun. The court pointed out that the prosecution’s judges’ inspection documents were “very inappropriate.”(Lee Nak-yeon, Democratic Party leader Facebook on the 25th)
A’major judicial analysis document’ that aroused shocking suspicion of’illegal inspection of judges’ in the public, and ultimately acted decisively in the’two months of honesty’ discipline. Why did President Yoon ask to create this document, and how was the document created?
The decision to suspend disciplinary enforcement by the 12th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Deputy Judge Hong Soon-wook), obtained by this magazine on the 26th, contained the’recognition fact’. It is a fact that the judgment was made when the record and the purpose of the interrogation were combined.
This paper reconstructed the facts of this recognition, the opinion that President Yoon had previously submitted to the inspection committee, and how the document was created through additional coverage. The facts of the court’s recognition were indicated in bold.
━
尹 Instructed the anti-corruption and airborne department to grasp… Investigation information office instructs cooperation
viewer
In February, President Yoon said he gave an order to the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Anti-Corruption and Power and the Public Investigation Department to “select a major case and find out the case of the judge in charge of the judgment and the method of conducting the lawsuit”.
In addition General Yoon gave an instruction to Sohn Joon-seong, then the Supreme Prosecutors’ Investigation Information Policy Officer (currently, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Investigation Information Officer) to’help the two departments to collect the data and then distribute them to each department’.
General Yoon argues that the purpose of the document was to be used as a reference for directing and supervising the first-line trial prosecutors in relation to the major trial cases of the departments in charge of the newly appointed anti-corruption force and public investigation managers. . In addition, it is argued that the reason for the ordering of the investigation and information policy officer’s office was that there were cases where a case led by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Anti-Corruption Power Department and a case led by the Public Investigation Department were allotted to one court.
The Ministry of Public Investigation, under the direction of President Yun, organized the data related to the judiciary in major cases and delivered it to the Office of the Investigation Information Policy Office. However, the Ministry of Anti-Corruption Power only delivered the list of judges and did not deliver data related to the judges. The reason why the Anti-Corruption Forces Ministry only delivered the list of judges to the Office of the Investigation and Information Policy Office at the time was not confirmed.
━
Policy Officer Son Jun-sung and Sung Sang-wook instructed to assemble and write
viewer
In response, Policy Officer Son instructed Sung Sang-wook, then Chief Prosecutors’ Investigation Information Officer (currently Head of Criminal Division 2, Goyang District Office) to prepare analysis data for the judiciary on major cases undertaken by the Ministry of Anti-Corruption. Accordingly, the sex officer wrote the’Major Judicial Analysis Document’. The document consisted of 1) related to special investigation 2) related to public security investigation and 3) other three items.
Among them, the sex officials wrote’related to public security investigation’ by referring to the data received from the public investigation department, and the other two parts were prepared by collecting the data themselves. The sex officer claims to have collected the data through computer searches and by phone call with the trial prosecutors.
Policy Officer Son completed the document and reported it to Yun. At this time, President Yoon argues that he only recognized the basic matters on the list of legal persons, the sentence of the past judgment, and the style of operation of the court, and he did not understand the details.
General Yoon instructed to deliver the document to Shim Jae-cheol, then the chief prosecutor of the anti-corruption force (currently, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Justice). In addition, he was asked to forward the document to the public investigation department of the Great Sword. Accordingly, the Office of the Investigation and Information Policy Office reportedly split the parts corresponding to each department and delivered them to each of the two departments.
━
Court “Danger of abuse of documents…very inappropriate”
viewer
On the 24th of last month, when he filed for the disciplinary action of President Yoon, Minister Chu applied the alleged violation of his duty to the judge’s documents delivered to the Ministry of Anti-Corruption and Power of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office. Documents delivered to the Ministry of Public Investigation were not discussed.
The Seoul Administrative Court said, “It is judged that it is very inappropriate in terms of the risk that the document will be abused, and that this kind of document should not be prepared in the future” based on the facts of misconduct prepared by the disciplinary committee and the above acknowledgment. Said.
The purpose of this is that the problem is that major special and public security cases were selected by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of the Investigation and Information Policy Office, and the origin, major judgments, opinions, and special matters of the judges in the judiciary were organized and documented. According to the’Regulations on the Office of the Prosecutors’ Office,’ the Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Investigation Information Policy also mentioned that the Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office is in charge of’the collection, analysis and management of investigation information and data’. The preparation of this document is interpreted intellectually that it does not fall within the scope of the investigation and information policy office.
━
The court “whether to admit the grounds for disciplinary action must be additionally examined”
However, in order to finally determine whether the grounds for disciplinary action were recognized, the court decided that additional hearings were necessary in the lawsuit for canceling the disciplinary disposition, which is the main issue, regarding the detailed method and process of preparing the document. There were four areas that the court suggested that there was a need for an additional hearing.
The first is how this data is being used to maintain public ownership. This means that the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Investigation and Information Policy will examine the process of collecting, preparing, and distributing data for the court. This is because the reason for the disciplinary action presupposes that the Office of the Investigation Information Policy Office does not handle information related to prosecution.
The second is the acquisition method of document preparation data. This is because it is difficult to understand the reason why the document was created by selectively collecting some of the contents if this document was prepared as public data, as President Yoon argued.
Thirdly, the Minister’s assertion that this document was written for the purpose of making jokes by attacking, slandering, or mocking the judge by forming a structure of public opinion unfavorable to the judge, and it seems that it was actually distributed to reporters for that purpose. The court judged that it was insufficient to admit the facts of the allegations only with the explanatory data submitted by the Minister Chu.
Fourth, whether this document was written repeatedly as insisted by Minister Chu or as a one-off as claimed by President Yoon. The court judged that it was insufficient to admit the claim that the statement was made repeatedly only with the explanatory data submitted by Minister Chu.
━
Judge’s document is illegal, investigation and impeachment are more places to come
This is the process of preparing the judge documents that have been disclosed so far and the judgment of the courts in this regard. The Seoul Administrative Court is expected to make a comprehensive judgment on the background and illegality of the judge’s documents in the case for canceling the disciplinary action of President Yoon. The prevailing prospect is that the results of the main lawsuit will only come after Yoon’s term of office is over in July next year.
In addition, it is likely that the prosecution’s investigation and impeachment of Yoon will be the place where an official judgment will be made to cover the disputes of the judge’s documents. The Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office is assigned to a case in which the Ministry of Justice commissioned an investigation by the Ministry of Justice for obstructing the exercise of ex officio abuse rights in connection with the preparation of the judge document. In the case of the Constitutional Court, if the National Assembly votes on the impeachment of President Yoon, it is expected to decide whether the documents of the judge are the grounds for the impeachment.
/ Reporter Jo Kwon-hyeong [email protected]
< 저작권자 ⓒ 서울경제, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지 >