The Supreme Court broke the court case that the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office warned against the vice-prosecutor Jin Hye-won of the Seoul East District District Prosecutor’s Office, and returned the case to the Seoul High Court. Prosecutor Jin had filed a lawsuit for canceling the disciplinary action, saying, “I asked for an inspection for the unauthorized collection of the warrant for seizure and search that was filed with the court during the investigation process, but was punished for an unfair audit.”
A photo of prosecutor Jin Hye-won on his Facebook page last July with arms crossed with the late Mayor Park Won-soon. yunhap news
The second division of the Supreme Court (Chief Chief Justice Park Sang-ok) canceled and returned the lower court in a lawsuit for canceling the warning disposition filed by Prosecutor Jin against the Prosecutor General on the 10th of last month. The Supreme Court said, “If there is no special circumstances that the court has deviated or abused the discretionary power given to the supervisory authority, it is desirable to respect it.”
Why did Prosecutor Jin file a lawsuit for’disciplinary cancellation’?
In June 2017, when he was working at the Jeju District Prosecutor’s Office, Kim Han-soo, then the Deputy Prosecutor of the Jeju District Prosecutor’s Office, asked the Supreme Prosecutors Office for an inspection, claiming that he had recovered the warrant request filed with the court without permission. As a result of the prosecution investigation, the chief prosecutor concluded that even though there was an instruction from the district prosecutor to review the request for the warrant again, the staff in charge incorrectly thought that the approval was completed and submitted the warrant to the court, and that the former deputy general manager Kim recovered.
In October of the same year, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office conducted an integrated audit of the Jeju District Prosecutors’ Office, and issued a warning saying that Jin had’inappropriately handled’ 19 investigations. In response, Jin filed a lawsuit against the Prosecutor General in April 2018, saying that the matters pointed out by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office were the investigations that were handled by exercising legitimate authority as the chief prosecutor, and the warning disposition was a measure of retaliation for his whistleblower.
1st and 2nd trial “Difficult to recognize grounds for disciplinary action”
The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul. yunhap news
Both the first and second judges judged that it was difficult to see that there were reasons for disciplinary action against the true prosecutor. The first trial court ruled that “the warning against the jin prosecutor is a heavy content that is out of balance rather than the reason for disposition,” and that “it is considerable to see that there is an offense that deviated or abused discretion against the proportional principle.” Along with this, it was judged that four of the 19 points received by Prosecutor Jin were not recognized.
Appeal Deliberation “Even though the intellectual content itself is valid as a result of the office audit, it does not serve as a basis for acknowledging that he has neglected his job to the extent that it is a reason for disciplinary action.” Doesn’t mean seriousness.” Since the matter pointed out by Prosecutor Jin was only a’minor mistake’, it was difficult to admit it as a reason for disciplinary action under the Prosecutor’s Discipline Act.
大法 “Respect for the right to supervise the duties of the Prosecutor General”
The Supreme Court’s judgment was different. The Supreme Court said, “The original judge misunderstood the laws of the prosecutor general’s duty to supervise the duties of the prosecutor,” and said, “The level of supervision at a lower level than the disciplinary disposition even if the prosecutor’s duty is not serious and does not fall under the disciplinary grounds under the Prosecutor Discipline Act As a measure, a’warning disposition’ can be taken.” The Prosecutor’s Disciplinary Act stipulates that disciplinary measures of more than’reprimand’ (in the order of reprimand, reduction, suspension, dismissal, and dismissal) are taken when the matter of violation is serious. The warning disposition received by a true prosecutor is not included in the type of disciplinary action under the Prosecutor’s Discipline Act.
At this time, I thought that the degree of error in the work should be left to the judgment of the prosecutor general, who is the’work supervisory authority’. The Supreme Court said, “The Prosecutor General is a high-level administrative agency that has the right to supervise the prosecutor’s duties and to request disciplinary action.” I include it.”
Reporter Park Hyun-joo [email protected]
