Hong Soon-wook is the point of’disciplinary procedure defect’… Yoon Seok-yeol can fill the entire term

In the suspension lawsuit against Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae, the court again raised the hand of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. In particular, it is interpreted that as the judiciary incorporated the procedural injustice of the disciplinary committee into the decision, in effect, President Yoon was successfully ending his term of office.

The 12th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Judge Hong Soon-wook) cited the suspension of execution for two months of disciplinary action filed by Yoon at around 10 pm on the 24th. This will take effect up to 30 days from the date of the sentence of the first trial lawsuit on the cancellation of the disciplinary action referred to as the’original lawsuit’.

The judge said that two of the four reasons recognized by the disciplinary committee were not recognized.

Once in the audit of the state administration, President Yoon did not admit the grounds for disciplinary action, saying that “I will slowly think about how I will serve our society and the people after I retire” undermining public confidence in political neutrality. The Ministry of Justice’s argument that’the possibility of the president’s political activity being discussed has the possibility of political use in the investigation of major cases’ was judged to be only speculation.

Also, regarding the reason for the disciplinary action that Yoon delegated the authority of investigation in the Channel A case to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Meeting and instructed to overturn it and refer it to the advisory group, it was considered “lack of vocation”. The reason is that the delegation and withdrawal of the investigation command authority is the authority of the prosecutor general.

However, the judiciary said that the reason for the disciplinary action for’interrupting the prosecution’ in relation to the Channel A case of Yoon was clarified. This is because General Yoon ordered the supervision to be stopped without reasons such as that the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office’s measures to initiate inspection were significantly unjust. In addition, he clarified, “It is very inappropriate to organize and document the origins and opinions of judges in major cases, and this kind of document should not be written in the future.” However, it is difficult to admit that these documents have been repeatedly written only with the data submitted by the Ministry of Justice so far, so it was decided that additional hearings were necessary in the main lawsuit.

The judge clarified that there were also problems with the disciplinary process. The disciplinary committee decided whether to exclude him from the disciplinary committee with a vote of the remaining three after leaving the person to be challenged out of the four members present. It is the judgment of the court that this is a violation of the Prosecutors’ Discipline Act, which requires four or more members, which is a majority of the enrolled members, to attend. In addition, he emphasized that the votes in which the members who were not allowed to participate in the disciplinary resolution alternately participated were also invalid because they did not meet the quorum.

Usually, procedural justification is often an issue in a disciplinary revocation lawsuit. This is because if it is admitted that there was a problem with the procedure, the disposition may be canceled regardless of the reason for disciplinary action. Dr. Seung Jae-Hyun of the Korea Criminal Policy Institute said, “It is of extraordinary significance in that the court confirmed that the’procedural legitimacy’ that President Moon Jae-in also emphasized has collapsed.”

Experts in the legal profession predict that there is a high possibility that Yoon will win in the main lawsuit, as half of the reasons for the disciplinary action were not acknowledged, and the procedural legitimacy was also found to be flawed. Justice Hong Soon-wook also wrote in the decision, “It is difficult to conclude that there is no possibility that Yoon will win the main bill.”

Judge Hong is included in the target of personnel in February, who has completed his three-year service life. If a new court is established, the outcome of the original lawsuit could be different. However, there is an expectation that it will not have a negative effect on Yun.

Even if the Ministry of Justice wins the main lawsuit, it is expected that Yun will appeal and appeal. If the case goes to the Supreme Court, it is difficult to conclude until Yoon’s term of office, which expires on July 24th. The Ministry of Justice cannot impose a new punishment against Yun unless the cancellation of the two-month suspension of disciplinary action is confirmed.

Even though Yoon won the main lawsuit, the Ministry of Justice must bear a huge political burden in order to impose new discipline on Yoon. It is concluded that even if Yun loses, it is impossible to impose new discipline until her term of office, so it is concluded that Yun’s term of office is maintained.

The Ministry of Justice said, “Considering the legal status and term of office of the prosecutor general, the inability to perform the duties as the president for two months is a damage that cannot be compensated with money unless there are special circumstances. It’s a loss of money.” It is interpreted as a judgment that takes into account the weight of the position of the prosecutor general who commands and supervises prosecutors.

On the other hand, it did not accept the opinion of the Ministry of Justice that “if the disciplinary action ceases to be effective, the exercise of fair prosecution power may be threatened in the investigation of the case related to the reasons for the disciplinary action of President Yun. Since the Prosecutor General is a volunteer for the entire public representing the public interest, he judged that there was no evidence that his return could have a significant impact on public welfare.

In this regard, the judiciary also mentioned Yoon’s past remarks that he was “not loyal to people.” In the decision, he wrote, “I handled the case of comments from the National Intelligence Service in the past, investigated with confidence, and expressed this conviction of myself.” However, this was also used as a reason for refusing to accept Yoon’s assertion that if Yun’s duties were suspended, it could damage the entire prosecution organization. The judge said, “The people trust and expect that front-line prosecutors will perform their duties on the part of the people rather than on the side of the prosecutor-general or politicians. There is no data to explain it.”

Reporter Lee Ga-young [email protected]