Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol is answering questions from reporters while attending the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho-gu on the afternoon of the 1st. yunhap news
The gist of the court’s decision to suspend the execution of disciplinary action by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol on the 24th is that the disciplinary action must be stopped until the ruling of the main lawsuit that cannot rule out the possibility of prevailing in the decision process because there were disputes over the reasons for disciplinary action and defects occurred in the resolution process. . General Yoon argued for the neutrality and independence of the Prosecutor General and the Ministry of Justice argued for the president’s democratic control over the prosecution, but the Judiciary was enforced on the basis of judicial judgment on the disciplinary procedures, reasons and requirements for suspension of execution. Acknowledged the need to stop. Looking at the 24-page decision released by the court, the 12th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Officer Hong Soon-wook) said, “It is a case of suspension of execution, but some judgment on the possibility of winning in the main case lawsuit was also necessary. The decision to suspend execution was also reflected in the decision to suspend the execution of the disciplinary charges, including the reason for the disciplinary action and the justification of the procedure.
“The analysis of the propensity of the court is very inappropriate because there is a risk of abuse… It cannot be rewritten”
The judiciary first said the document’Analysis of the propensity of the judiciary’ ordered to be prepared by President Yoon. “It is very inappropriate to document the judge’s major judgments and opinions in terms of the risk of misuse. I can’t.” However, as the Ministry of Justice asserted, in order to confirm whether the document was used for attacking the court or has been repeatedly reported, “At present, there is insufficient evidence, so the process of collecting, preparing, and distributing data from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Investigation and Information Policy (which prepared the document) was added. It is necessary to have a hearing.” Interference with prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, who was involved in the incident on Channel, was valid as a disciplinary ground, but he thought that the interfering with the investigation was insufficiently clarified. In April, the reason that Yun stopped the supervision of the prosecution department head Dong-soo Han is contrary to the Act on Public Audit. However, there are regulations on the operation of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Supervisory Commission that the initiation of inspection of important cases must go through the deliberation of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Supervisory Commission. “It is not clear whether the general public ordered to stop inspecting Han Dong-hoon for the purpose of interfering with the prompt inspection and investigation. I need more.” In addition, the act of entrusting Channel A’s investigative command authority to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Meeting and then refering the case to the expert investigative advisory group is “seems to be within the scope of the prosecutor general’s investigative command authority.” . The judge saw that there was no problem with the answer as to whether or not Yoon participated in politics during a state affairs audit at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in October. When asked, “Will you be going to do politics?” “After completing my duties, I am a person who has received many benefits from our society, so I will slowly think about how to serve our society and the people after retiring. “It is difficult to tell now” to the repeated question,’Does politics also go into the method of service?’ The Ministry of Justice’s disciplinary committee concluded that these remarks “make doubts about political neutrality,” but the judge said that it “is only a conjecture by the disciplinary committee and is not appropriate as a basis for acknowledging the misconduct.” ‘Service after retirement’ also said, “‘Service for our society and the people’ can be interpreted in several meanings, such as service through politics, free defense for the people, service through other public offices, and general volunteer work.” The truth of the remarks will be revealed according to the steps taken after retirement, so it is difficult to conclude that these remarks are inappropriate words and actions regarding political neutrality.”
“Insufficient quorum when deciding to challenge disciplinary committee”
The court judged that only the issue of the quorum of the disciplinary member evasion decision was’invalid’ in the illegality of the proceedings that President Yoon continued to argue during the disciplinary process. Under the Prosecutors’ Disciplinary Act, a decision to evade a disciplinary committee can only be resolved by a majority (4) of the total disciplinary committee members (7).However, there are cases in which 3 disciplinary members rejected the request for avoidance. I thought it happened. At the time, the Prosecutor and Discipline Committee of the Ministry of Justice was attended by Han-Jung Jeong, Professor Han-Jung Ahn, Professor of Chonnam National University, Vice Minister of Justice Yong-gu Lee, Jae-cheol Shim, Prosecutor General of the Ministry of Justice, and Chief of the Anti-Corruption Powers Department of Supreme Prosecutor Shin Seong-sik. Wow, when the Vice Minister’s application for evasion was filed, three voted. Afterwards, Director Shim was given a document to analyze the propensity of the judiciary and avoided it because he was a member of the vice president’s meeting who was appointed to lead the investigation into the channel. Even when the President Yoon’s individual objection was filed against each member, three members rotated to make a decision. I got to the situation. Since it is judged that most of Yoon’s petitions for refusal were dismissed unlawfully, it is expected that it will adversely affect the Ministry of Justice in future main lawsuits. However, the judiciary saw that it was not procedurally illegal to appoint Professor Jeong Han-jung to act as the acting chairman of the disciplinary committee on behalf of Minister Choo Mi-ae, or to participate in the resolution of the appeal of Director Shim who avoided disciplinary action.
“The absence of the president for two months is not a total damage to the prosecution.”
By combining these judgments, the court concluded by comparing the unrecoverable damages and the urgent necessity to them against public welfare. The court found that Yoon suffered damages from being unable to serve as president for two months, and that “a loss that could not be compensated with money occurred”, taking into account the legal status and term of office of President Ki-in Kim. In addition, considering the possibility of winning the main bill, it was determined that there was an urgent need for suspension of execution. However, he did not accept the argument on the part of President Yoon that the damage to the prosecution’s independence and neutrality was’a damage that is difficult to recover’. In addition, the judge said, “It is not enough to call out and call for a political purpose, such as retaliation of the Ministry of Justice for the investigation of’living power’ such as the case of the former Justice Minister Cho Kook’s family and the election intervention case in Ulsan mayor, There is no data to do.” In addition, regarding the claim that the two-month absence of President Yoon is damaging the will of prosecutors in charge of the investigation, causing damage to the prosecution organization and society as a whole, he said, “The deputy prosecutor or front-line prosecutors acting on behalf of the president He did not admit this, saying, “I trust that I will perform my job on the side.” Along with this, the Ministry of Justice asserted that “this disciplinary action is the exercise of personnel rights by the President, the head of the administration, to the prosecutor general, a member of the administration, and if an application for suspension of execution is cited, it violates public welfare such as instability of the administration and division of public opinion.” The argument alone cannot be concluded that there is a significant impact on public welfare.” By Jang Ye-ji, staff reporter [email protected]