Attorney Ok-hyung Lee (left), a lawyer for the Ministry of Justice, and Suk-woong Lee, a lawyer for the Prosecutor General Yoon Suk-yeol, are answering the reporters’ questions after completing the second interrogation of the suspension of execution of the suspension of the suspension of the suspension of the suspension held at the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the afternoon of the 24th. yunhap news
It is analyzed that it is because the Ministry of Justice failed to properly prove the reason for the disciplinary action in the legal profession after the court’s decision to suspend the effect of the’two months of honesty’ disposition against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. On the other hand, President Yoon’s side is evaluated as having achieved a complete victory with the precision method, emphasizing that “the grounds for disciplinary action and procedure are both not legal.”
Justice Department “The Justice Department’s disciplinary grounds cannot be clarified”
Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae is on the morning of the 24th to go to the Gwacheon government office in Gyeonggi-do. News 1
According to the decision to suspend the execution of discipline by the 12th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Deputy Judge Hong Soon-wook) on the 27th, the court judged that most of the reasons for the disciplinary action of President Yoon were not elucidated. The Ministry of Justice submitted 1,500 pages of evidence. This is about three times as much as the 550 pages on Yoon’s side.
The judiciary decided that it was “very inappropriate” for the’analysis of the judiciary’. However, he said, “In order to finally determine whether the reason for disciplinary action is recognized, an additional hearing on the detailed method of writing the document and the background is necessary.” In particular, the claim that this document was prepared for the purpose of attacking and slandering the court was difficult to admit only with the explanatory data submitted so far.
Regarding the allegations of interfering with the investigation of Channel A, he said, “The delegation of the investigative command authority to the chief prosecutor general meeting and the act of withdrawing the delegation seem to be within the scope of the prosecutor general’s investigative command authority.” Judged.
I thought that it was difficult to conclude that President Yoon’s remarks on’service to the public’ were also inappropriate words and actions about political neutrality. The judge said that this remark could be interpreted in various meanings, such as service through politics, service through other public offices, and general volunteer work.
An attorney in Seocho-dong said, “The lawyers on the Ministry of Justice also did their best, but in the first place, it would not have been easy to argue because there was a defect in the disciplinary committee’s disciplinary reason or procedure.”
Therefore, attorney Ok-hyung Lee of the Ministry of Justice mainly emphasized that it does not meet the requirements for suspension of execution. After the second hearing on the 24th, the lawyer emphasized that “how the impact of (President Yoon’s job maintenance) on public welfare was the key.” The Administrative Procedure Act does not allow suspension of execution when there is a concern of having a significant impact on the public welfare.
‘Prefect Public Law’ emphasizing the illegality of disciplinary procedures and grounds on the part of President Yoon
On the afternoon of the 25th, Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, who returned to work following the citation of the administrative court’s request for suspension of the enforcement of the disciplinary action of the prosecutor general, is on his way to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul. yunhap news
General Yoon’s side confronted it with the government law, saying, “Neither the disciplinary procedure nor the reason is legal.” It was the judgment of the illegality of the disciplinary process that led to the decision to cite the court. The court accepted the position of President Yoon, saying, “The disciplinary committee itself is invalid” because it did not meet the quorum set by the Prosecutor’s Disciplinary Act in the process of requesting and deciding to challenge the disciplinary committee.
Yoon’s side also emphasized that the facts were not properly confirmed on the statements of the Public Investigation Department, Lee Jung-hyun, the head of the Public Investigation Department, Kim Kwan-jeong, the head of the public prosecutor’s office, and Jeong Jin-woong, the deputy prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutor’s Office, who were involved in the investigation of the Channel A case. In the end, the court decided that this should be properly verified in the main bill.
Yoon’s side also prepared for the disciplinary committee’s “two months of honesty” disposition, rather than severe disciplinary action, aiming to dismiss the application for suspension of execution. In the response submitted at the request of the court, President Yoon said, “We will cooperate as much as possible so that the original lawsuit can be completed within 4 months.” “If the first trial decision is sentenced within 4 months since President Yoon’s term of office remains for about 7 months, There is enough time for the two-month disposition to be executed,” he persuaded the court.
Yoon, who received a decision to suspend the enforcement of the disciplinary action by the court, said in a statement on the 27th that it will focus on preparing the main lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disciplinary action.
Reporter Kang Kwangwoo [email protected]