Yoon Seok-yeol’s side “The court demands an additional clarification for the case of the court case and the case of Channel A…submit in writing”

In front of the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the afternoon of the 22nd, attorneys Sohn Gyeong-sik (from left), Lee Seong-wook, and Lee Wan-gyu, special attorneys for Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, answer questions from reporters after completing a trial on the case for suspension of execution for President Yoon’s two-month suspension. 2020.12.22/News1 © News1 Reporter Seyoung Lim

Ahead of the second interrogation date in the case of suspension of execution against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol’s “two months of honesty” disposition, Mr. Yoon’s lawyer announced that he will make additional clarifications on the court’s analysis documents and Channel A case at the request of the court.

On the 23rd, Mr. Yoon’s defense attorney said, “The court asked the applicant and the respondent to prepare for some questions. Among the individual disciplinary grounds, the complaints of the applicant and the respondent in interfering with the investigation and interception of the investigation of Channel A. He said, “I have to explain the grounds of this.”

It also added that the contents of the additional inquiries by the judiciary to the Ministry of Justice were also included.

According to the questionnaire for additional answers summarized by the Ministry of Justice on the previous day (22nd), the judge said, “How much hearing is needed on the main bill?” “The content of the unrecoverable damage claimed by the applicant and the respondent includes the rule of law and the interests of society in general. I asked,’What is the specific content of public welfare?’

Mr. Yoon’s lawyer said, “We will prepare a document for the preparatory order to be submitted within today.”

The 12th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Deputy Judge Hong Soon-wook, Kim Jae-gyeong and Kim Eon-ji) held a hearing from 2 pm to 4:15 pm the previous day, but could not reach a conclusion and decided to reopen the hearing date at 3 pm on the 24th.

It is reported that Yoon’s side emphasized the necessity of preservation, such as the unfairness of the grounds for disciplinary action, irreparable damages, and urgent necessity for procedural violations from the prosecution investigation stage to the disciplinary decision process at the interrogation date.

Yoon also stated that “the prosecution’s political neutrality and independence are fundamentally damaged by committing illegal and unfair disciplinary action in the light of exercise of the disciplinary power, and there is serious damage to the rule of law, and such infringement cannot be neglected for even one second.”

[email protected]