Justice Minister Park Beom-gye is entering the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul to attend the Supreme Court Candidate Recommendation Committee on the afternoon of the 22nd. yunhap news
It was as expected. The counterattack card taken out on the 22nd by Justice Minister Park Beom-gye, who received a report from the great prosecutor’s office on the “maintaining the conclusion of the alleged termination” of the suspected case of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook, was a “high-intensity inspection”. Moreover, on the 19th, Minister Park ordered a omnidirectional inspection, including the outflow of media outlets from the results of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and High Prosecutors’ Meeting. In connection with the case of former Prime Minister Han, following the initiation of the investigation and command authority, the’second round’ confrontation with the prosecution began.
Minister Park explained the joint prosecution of the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, emphasizing’preparation of measures to improve direct prosecution investigations that can gain public sympathy’. He intends to look back on the procedural problems in the process of dealing with the former Prime Minister’s case. Apart from the controversy about former Prime Minister Han’s guilt and innocence, the intention is to reflect on the chronic ills of the prosecution’s investigation. However, some point out that the case of former Prime Minister Han was used as an opportunity to inspect and induce controversy.
The Ministry of Justice said about the specific direction of this joint prosecution, “from 2010 to 2011, not only the entire investigation and trial process of the former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook, but also the distribution of civil petitions, investigation, decision making, and final conclusion last year In fact, in the case of former Prime Minister Han, the controversy over “political target investigation” continued from the prosecution’s investigation stage 10 years ago. Even though the Supreme Court finalized ruling in 2015, in April last year, there was a moral perjury. Even teacher suspicion arose.
First of all, in relation to the ‘900 million won illegal political fund transfer case’, the’inspection points’ selected by the Ministry of Justice are △investigation methods for human rights infringements △the conditions for practicing testimony by inmates △providing unreasonable convenience to inmates △the circumstances of the summons of opaque cases. This includes suspicion that the late Han Man-ho, a donor of money, was summoned 70 times, or even the son and nephew of Han was called to investigate Han Mo, a colleague of the former representative inmate.
The main details of the joint prosecution of the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office in the case of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook. Graphic = Reporter Kim Dae-hoon
In order to get the statement that “Former CEO Han Man-ho overturned the statement of money offerings to former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook is a lie,” he practiced testimony in court to fellow inmates of the former CEO and provided convenience, such as providing outside food. Circumstances that did not properly record the attendance record in the office are also subject to inspection. Along with this, the fact that the second investigation was initiated in earnest through the seizure and search of Han Shin Kun-young one day before the sentence could be raised when the first trial was expected to be innocent in the first case of’Han Myeong-sook’ ($50,000 bribery case). This is because the controversy over target investigation at the time was fierce.
The Ministry of Justice also targeted the process of handling the case of perjury by’Suk-yeol Yoon’ after receiving a complaint from an inmate in April of last year. Specifically, they cited △the process of transferring a civil petition case, △controversy about exclusion of certain prosecutors’ duties △controversy about unreasonable decision making △disclosure of contents of private meetings. The fact that the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office transferred the case to the Ministry of Justice at the time to the Ministry of Human Rights, and after the prosecution department took over the case again, examine the process of designating Heo Jung-soo, the chief prosecutor, as the chief prosecutor, not the prosecution policy researcher Lim Eun-jeong, who insisted on “prosecuting the inmate”. I will see. On the 5th, when the Supreme Swordsman concluded that he was not suspicious, he again pointed out the fact that only six of the Supreme Sword Researchers went through discussions and did not listen to the opinions of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Inspector General Han Dong-soo or Lim Eun-jung. In addition, on the 19th, when the contents of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and the High Prosecutors’ Office were immediately reported to the media, the Ministry of Justice said, “We will inspect the specific media leaks of the contents of the private meeting.”
However, apart from these issues, it seems difficult to be recognized for the purity of this inspection. This is because the case that he chose as an opportunity to improve wrong investigation practices was a political case involving a prominent passport person, and 10 years ago when a conviction was also convicted. A prosecutor in charge of the local prosecutor’s office said, “It is true that it is a problem to look back on unusual and repetitive subpoenas, but most of the investigations have disappeared now. However, in that the case of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook, who had a strong political character, was selected as the subject of inspection, the’target at the time’ I don’t know what the hell is different from’Susa’.”
Joonki Jeong reporter [email protected]
News directly edited by the Hankook Ilbo can also be viewed on Naver.
