 |
|
| ▲ Attorney Ok-hyung Lee, a lawyer for the Ministry of Justice, is entering the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, where the second interrogation of the suspension of execution of the suspension of the suspension of prosecution against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol is held on the afternoon of the 24th. | |
| Ⓒ Yonhap News |
See related photos |
 |
|
| ▲ Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol’s lawyer Lee Seok-woong is entering the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, where the second interrogation of the suspension of execution of the suspension of the suspension against Yoon is held on the afternoon of the 24th. | |
| Ⓒ Yonhap News |
See related photos |
[2신 : 24일 오후 5시 13분 ]
Interrogation ended in 1 hour and 15 minutes,… Both sides “results expected to come out today”
4:15 pm on this day. The second interrogation by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol was ended in 1 hour and 15 minutes. Now, the final judgment was left to the judge.
On that day, lawyers from both sides predicted that the decision of the Seoul Administrative Court on the request for suspension of execution of the two-month suspension of disciplinary action by President Yoon will be made during today. If the court accepts Mr. Yun’s request, Mr. Yoon may immediately return to work and the disciplinary action will be suspended until the result of the original lawsuit is reached. Conversely, if Yun’s application is dismissed, the current status of Yoon, who has been suspended for two months, remains intact and can return to the post of prosecutor general after two months.
After the trial, attorney Ok-hyung Lee of the Ministry of Justice said, “The judge said that he would make a final decision today,” and said, “I think the court has already made a decision.”
The lawyer said that in the trial that day, the main mention was whether the disposition against President Yoon was against public welfare. Lee said, “President Yoon’s side insisted on the rule of law and independence of the prosecutors’ office (in relation to public welfare). It is clear that the investigators will be hampered if Yun returns to his office, and they have been told in court that this is not the most important issue.”
Lee said that the contents of the questionnaire previously sent to both sides by the court were not additionally handled in court.
Yoon Seok-yeol’s lawyer Lee Seok-woong said, “There is no significant difference in the trial on this day. Both sides have sufficiently expressed their opinions on the question of the court’s questions.” We’ve mentioned a lot about the problem, but we also specifically mentioned the arguments we’ve made so far.”
Regarding the’irreparable damages’, which was the fundamental reason why President Yoon filed an administrative lawsuit, the lawyer said, “You need to get the judgment of the court, but we or the respondent made a specific argument in the court.” “I’m looking forward to a quick decision since I closed the interrogation and said it would be decided as soon as possible, and as soon as possible today.”
[1신 : 24일 오후 3시 24분]
Yoon Seok-yeol’s second interrogation begins… 8 questions left by the judge are key
Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol and the Ministry of Justice met again at the court after two days. At 3 pm on the 24th, the Seoul Administrative Court held a second interrogation date on the case of the suspension of execution of the two-month suspension of disciplinary action by President Yoon.
Earlier, the Seoul Administrative Court had a deadline for the first interrogation on the case of President Yoon on the 22nd. At the time, the court announced that it would not close the hearing on the same day, but sent additional inquiries to both sides, and that it would resume at 3 pm on the 24th based on the related details.
Prior to the trial on the day, if the contents of the questionnaire released by the Ministry of Justice and President Yoon are summarized, the requirements of the court are summarized into eight. ▲ To what extent a hearing is necessary for the main issue ▲ Whether the rule of law or the general interests of society are included in the contents of’hard to recover damages’ claimed by the applicant and the respondent, ▲ What are the specifics of public welfare, ▲ Composition of the disciplinary committee Is it legitimate? ▲ What is the purpose of the analysis document by the judiciary ▲ Explain what the grounds for interfering with the investigation of Channel A and interfering with the investigation ▲ Explain in detail the individual reasons for disciplinary action (in addition to President Yoon’s) ▲ Prosecution It will be revealed whether the initiation can be done without the approval of the president.
The jurisprudence battle that will take place at the trial is also expected to be developed based on the previous questionnaire. Both sides mentioned how they prepared the answer to the court’s questionnaire and the direction of the trial before entering the trial on the same day.
At 2:41 p.m., attorney Lee Seok-woong of President Yoon, who first arrived at the Seoul Administrative Court, responded to the questionnaire of the court, saying, “What are irreparable damages, what are the urgent necessities (to suspend execution), public welfare? He said, “There are a lot of specific questions from the Court of Justice regarding procedural or substantive matters, so we responded to them. We wrote about 3 written documents.” “I paid it, and the other person did it,” he explained.
Lee added, “We know that (the court) will hear within the scope necessary to decide this case, as the degree of possibility of winning the original bill (the legality of the discipline of President Yoon) may also be included in the subject of this case hearing.”
Attorney Ok-hyung Lee of the Ministry of Justice arrived in front of the Seoul Administrative Court at 2:53 pm. Regarding the questionnaire for the judiciary, attorney Ok-hyung Lee said, “I asked whether there was a material or procedural defect (to the discipline of President Yoon), so I answered with the effect that there was no defect.” He explained.
Regarding the main case, he said, “Because our position is basically suspension of execution, the requirements for suspension of execution are subject to judicial review and the main proposal is subject to judicial review within the scope necessary to determine the requirements for suspension of execution.” The enforcement itself is so important that the subject of judicial review can be broadened.”