The court accepted the request for suspension of execution by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol asking for the suspension of the two-month disciplinary effect.
Considering the remaining term of office of President Yoon, it may cause damages that are difficult to recover, and in the’procedural illegality’ part, it was determined that there was a defect in the process of resolving the disciplinary committee challenge.
The 12th administration department of the Seoul Administrative Court said that it has made a partial citing decision on the request for suspension of execution against the Minister of Justice, requesting that Yun’s two-month suspension of suspension be suspended.
The court said, “The two-month suspension of the President will cease to take effect until 30 days from the date of the sentence of the main lawsuit.”
In particular, it was judged that if the execution was not suspended,’hard to recover damage’ would occur.
He mentioned that the remaining term of office of President Yun will expire on July 24 of next year, he explained, “The decision on whether the disciplinary action in this case will be suspended may make the main decision on whether the disciplinary action is illegal or not.”
He added, “A loss that cannot be compensated with money”.
However, regarding the performance of the prosecutor general’s duties, he said, “There is no data to clarify that the entire prosecution will suffer irreparable damages,” and he did not accept any claims to damage independence and neutrality.
Another issue,’procedural illegality’, admitted that there was a defect in the resolution process for the challenge.
The Justice Department said, “The Ministry of Justice argues that members who have been challenged should be included in the quorum attendance committee, but excluded from the quorum attendance committee, but the content of the interpretation of the law.”
However, it was determined that the participation of the prosecutor’s office chief Shim Jae-cheol, who avoided the appointment of the prosecutor and disciplinary committee chairman Jeong Han-jung, was “not illegal”.
I saw the Justice Department’s claim that it could have a significant impact on public welfare as “hard to determine.”
In addition, the judiciary also made specific judgments on the charges of disciplinary action, like the’original’ trial.
First of all, regarding the controversial judges’ suspicion document, the document itself seemed inappropriate, but it was judged that “in general, an additional hearing is needed in the main bill on the specific method and process of writing the document.”
Channel A’s obstruction part was called, but he said, “It is necessary to have a sufficient hearing in the main case whether Yun ordered the cessation of the inspection for the purpose of interfering with the rapid inspection and investigation.”
He pointed out that the part that was referred to the advisory group and interfered with the investigation was “it seems to be within the scope of the prosecutor general’s investigation and command authority,” and that “the call is insufficient.”
Regarding the violation of political neutrality, he said it was difficult to determine that “the truth of the statement will be revealed according to the steps taken after retirement.”
Meanwhile, President Yoon said, “I am deeply grateful for the judgment of the judiciary,” and said, “I will do my best to uphold the constitutional spirit, rule of law, and common sense.”
He added, “I will go to work on the afternoon of the 25th and 26th, which is a holiday.”