General Society: Society: News: Hankyoreh

Most of the cases related to Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, where former Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae ordered the prosecution at the time of his tenure in office, have been fuzzy without any clear conclusions. Of the six cases in which the supervision and investigation was ordered, no inappropriate intervention by President Yoon was identified, and it is unclear whether the supervision is ongoing or over. Earlier, on the 9th, the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office asked President Yoon to write a’document for analyzing the propensity of the courts’, and in connection with the allegations of abuse of authority, the Seoul High Prosecutor’s Office was not charged. It was judged that it was difficult to admit the charges against President Yoon as a result of grasping the facts of the cases involved in the preparation of the document, including Yoon. The suspicion is one of the main reasons for the request for disciplinary action by President Yoon, and it is a case in which Minister Chu ordered the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office to inspect it at the end of last year. In addition, four months have passed for other cases of inspection order, but the completion of inspection has not been confirmed. In the case of alleged involvement of Yoon, which Minister Chu ordered for inspection from October to December last year, in addition to the creation of a document for analyzing the propensity of the court of justice, △the dismissal of the Optimus case during the time of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office △The suspicion of concealing hospitality for prosecutors related to the Lime incident and the insolvency investigation Suspicion △ Meeting with the owners of the Chosun and JoongAng Ilbo △ Suspicion of the use of special activity expenses by the president △ Deputy chief prosecutor Jin-woong Jeong, whether or not it is appropriate. The suspicion that Yoon was investigating the Optimus case while serving as the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office has not revealed any specific circumstances of the intervention until now, and the suspicion of improper meetings with the media outlets and the use of special activity expenses of the president were not recognized as reasons for the disciplinary action of the president. In this regard, an official from the Ministry of Justice said, “The results of the inspection, such as the meeting of the media stockholders and the suitability of the prosecution of prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong, were claimed as reasons for disciplinary action. In fact, it should be seen that the inspection has been completed,” he said. “The suspicion of special service expenses should be viewed as a character to investigate whether it is being used according to the guidelines rather than an inspection order.” As a result, the unprecedented supervision orders that Minister Chu poured out only raised the conflict, but did not produce any clear results. A lawyer in Seocho-dong pointed out, “In order for the minister’s supervision power to control the prosecution and exert its power for prosecution reform, it needs to be exercised in a more elaborate and modest way, taking the case of last year as a mirror.” By Ok Ki-won, staff reporter [email protected]