Court “Suk-yeol Yoon’s disciplinary resolution itself is invalid”… Disciplinary Committee missed due process

[윤석열 정직 효력 중단, 법원 결정문 분석]
Members who were evaded during the disciplinary decision cannot participate
‘Political neutrality damage’ is difficult to determine at the moment
Other disciplinary grounds judged need more hearing

The court cited the’case for suspension of execution for two months of honesty’ issued by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol on the 24th, “The disciplinary action itself is invalid because the Prosecutor and Disciplinary Committee (disciplinary committee) of the Ministry of Justice did not follow due process.”Declared. Not only the Ministry of Justice, but also the President, who approved the decision of the Ministry of Justice, became inescapable of criticism following the discipline of President Yoon.

The 12th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Director Soon-wook Hong), who heard the request for suspension of execution, pointed out that “the disciplinary committee violated Article 17, Paragraph 4 of the Prosecutor’s Discipline Act.” The provision stipulates that’the number of participants must surpass the majority of the enrolled members in a decision to challenge, and a person who has received an application for challenge cannot participate in a disciplinary decision.’ However, when the General Disciplinary Committee decided on the reasons for refusal by the two members, only three members of the five members attending excluding the one who had been challenged were heard. In other words, the number of members who participated in the evasion resolution did not reach the majority of the enrolled members (4 out of 7).

For the same reason, “three out of the four finalists who participated in the disciplinary resolution were requested to be challenged, and the disciplinary resolution itself was also invalid.” The Ministry of Justice has put off the disciplinary committee twice, stating that “President Yoon’s right of defense is guaranteed.” It has a shape that follows, but the disciplinary committee, which is the’main game’, did not observe it.

However, it is difficult to say that Yoon also won a full victory. Yoon said, “It is procedurally illegal for the Ministry of Justice to appoint a professor Jung Han-jung, a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, and to evade after the Prosecutor General of the Justice Department participated in the decision to evade, and that the Ministry of Justice did not disclose the disciplinary record or the list of disciplinary members. This is because they defeated all of the president’s claims.

‘Political neutrality damage’ cannot be recognized as a ground for disciplinary action

Unlike in the case of the previous exclusion-related case, the court also made a judgment on the grounds for disciplinary action to be dealt with in the main lawsuit. Considering the pleading plans announced by both sides, it is because “the main issue cannot be sentenced within the remaining term of office of the president (7 months), so it is necessary to make a similar judgment in the case of suspension of execution.”

first ①’Political neutrality damage’ The charges asserted that “currently, only the explanatory data are not recognized as grounds for disciplinary action.” The truth of what he said “I will serve our society and the people after retirement” at the National Assembly Legislative and Judicial Committee’s audit of the state will be revealed according to the actions after retirement, so it is explained that it is difficult to conclude that it is inappropriate at the moment.

②’Channel A inspectionㆍ③ Interference in investigation’ The charges said there was room for contention. In particular, he said, “There is room for disciplinary reasons for some reasons for disciplinary action to have been clarified by the fact that Yun had to stop the inspection of the’high-ranking prosecutor’s officials of the Buddha’s name to the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office’. In accordance with the law, the supervision can be stopped only when the supervisory supervisor’s performance is remarkably unfair or out of the scope of his duties, because President Yoon only received a report of the commencement of supervision and gave an order to stop it. At the same time, he added, “It is necessary to have a sufficient hearing whether Yoon had the purpose of promptly interfering with the inspection and investigation.” The allegations of interfering with the investigation of Channel A also explained that “the act of delegating the authority of the investigation to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Meeting and withdrawing it is included in the authority of the prosecutor general,” he also explained that an additional hearing is necessary.

It was controversial enough to be presented as an agenda at the National Judges’ Meeting. ④’Preparation and distribution of analysis documents for the court’ Regarding the allegations, the judgment was withheld, saying, “It is inappropriate but requires additional explanatory data.” The judiciary pointed out that “the relevant document was prepared by the Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Investigation and Information Policy in charge of investigative information and is very inappropriate in that there is a risk of being abused in the future, and this kind of document should not be written in the future.” However, he said, “It is correct to make a final judgment after going through an additional examination on the specific method and process of writing the document.”

Recognition of damages and urgent needs that are difficult to recover

The judiciary Recognition of damages and urgent need that are difficult to recoverdid. Considering the legal status and term of office of the Prosecutor General, he saw that “two months of honesty corresponds to irreparable damages, and the urgent need to suspend execution to prevent damages is recognized.” However, he drew a line, saying, “It cannot be concluded that claims that the instability of the administrative government or the division of national opinion affects public welfare.”

At the same time, most of the facts that President Yoon argued as the necessity of suspension were not acknowledged. Yoon’s side argued that “the punishment against the president is political retaliation for the investigation of living power, and this seriously undermines the independence and neutrality of the prosecution”, but the court saw that “there is no data to explain this.” In addition, they did not accept claims that “it is in fact similar to dismissal” or that “there is an urgent need to suspend execution after becoming head of the plant.”

Jooyoung Yoon reporter [email protected]

0



0



share



Save

Subscribe to the Hankook Ilbo News Naver Channel

Balance to see the world, the Hankook Ilbo Copyright © Hankookilbo