“Is it inspected without the approval of the president?” Question of law posed to Yoon Seok-yeol and Han Dong-soo

‘Is it possible to initiate an inspection without the approval of the president?’

The second hearing on the suspension of the enforcement of the disciplinary action of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol is scheduled on the 24th, and the judge, Deputy Judge Hong Soon-wook of the Seoul Administrative Court, included this question in the questionnaire sent to the Ministry of Justice and President Yoon.

This is to determine if it was correct that Yoon Seok-yeol was trying to interfere with the investigation of the alleged attempts by Channel A reporter in April. It is said that one of the prosecutor’s offices recently attended a meeting of the disciplinary committee against Mr. Yun as a witness and made a statement with the intent of “the president interfered with the prosecution with political intentions.” In the affidavit, he even wrote the expression, “I think I am conscious of the coup through the prosecution investigation.”

In April, after a media report alleging a connection between a reporter of Channel A and a senior prosecutor’s officer came out, a prosecutor general sent a text message to General Yoon, who was on vacation, saying that he would start investigating the case. It wasn’t asking President Yun whether to inspect it, but notified it after it had already decided to start it. Then, General Yun stopped the inspection and entrusted the investigation to the Human Rights Department of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office.

The disciplinary committee stated in the resolution that Yun had abused the power of the prosecutor general by unreasonably stopping the prosecution case that was lawfully initiated by the prosecutor’s office to protect his entourage. Despite the fact that the prosecution’s high-ranking officials were originally stipulated in the regulations of the prosecutor’s office to be undertaken by the prosecutor’s office, they were forced to leave the human rights department to interfere with the prosecution’s’Golden Time’. The disciplinary committee was later heard on the grounds that a reporter for Channel A attempted to destroy evidence, such as formatting a cell phone and a laptop, while the Ministry of Human Rights was not conducting a special investigation.

On the other hand, General Yoon’s position is that there was no problem in instructing Prosecutors General Dong-soo Hand to stop the inspection at the time. At the time, regarding the’text notification’ of a prosecutor’s office, it was pointed out that he had violated the rules. Even though there is a provision in the prosecution policy that’important inspection cases must be deliberated by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office before commencement’, he has notified the inspection. It was also heard that the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Human Rights has also been carrying out investigations by high-ranking prosecutors.

It is expected that the court will essentially examine whether the prosecutor’s office belonging to the great prosecutor has the authority to initiate an inspection on its own without the approval of the prosecutor general. At the meeting of the disciplinary committee, Yoon argued that it was the rightful exercise of the president in accordance with the provisions that “the prosecutor general oversees the affairs of the prosecution”, while the side who insisted on the discipline of Yoon’s disciplinary action, it was reported that the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office was an independent institution.

According to the JoongAng Ilbo report, it is known that in the statement submitted to the disciplinary committee, the prosecution manager Han Dong-soo wrote several’politically inappropriate remarks’. He said that since he was appointed as the chief prosecutor’s office at the beginning of this year, he has made notes on what Yoon said at meals, etc. Regarding this, one prosecution officer said, “Of course, disciplinary grounds cannot be provided to arbitrarily interpret remarks that may distort the speaker’s intentions and write them down in the affidavit.”

In addition, in the questionnaire, the court contained detailed questions related to the allegation of Yoon’s’judge inspection’. It is an order to “explain what the purpose of the analysis document for the court of justice is used” prepared by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Investigation and Information Policy. One legal official said, “In the contents of the questionnaire, these two questions are to determine whether there is a substantial basis for disciplinary action.” “As the suspension of execution trial has the nature of the main case, this is the final judgment. It seems to have a significant impact.”

Reporter Dr. Ra [email protected]