[ad_1]
In front of the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 30th, when an interrogation on the suspension of the execution of duties takes place against Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol of the Ministry of Justice, members of conservative groups such as Free Solidarity are calling for the removal of the exclusion of President Yoon’s duties. News 1
The cross-examination of the request for stay of execution, which Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol presented to the Minister of Justice, Chu Mi-ae, said: “Please stop the effect of the exclusion order against me,” it was completed in about an hour. Both sides fought a fierce battle over whether the provision would cause “irreparable harm” to President Yun. The court did not specifically notify the timing of the decision in this case.
The Fourth Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Director Mi-yeon Cho) conducted an interrogation on the case of the request for suspension of execution of the effect of suspension of functions presented by President Yoon starting at 11 am on the day 30. A request for stay of execution is a dispute procedure in which a state agency requests a temporary suspension of the effect of the provision before the sentence of the main trial (administrative trial), which considers its validity.
Yoon’s side requested in court that “(due to the suspension of the prosecution) not only the personal injury of the general public, but also the harm to the public interest.” Attorney Wan-gyu Lee, who is the legal representative for Yoon’s lawsuit, argued that “if the attorney general’s job is left blank for even one day, problems will inevitably occur in the prosecution’s operating system.” He added: “(Accepting Minister Chu’s provision) seriously undermines the guarantee of independence, political neutrality and quasi-judicial institution of the prosecution, and it is difficult to recover from its nature.”
On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice said: “We have to determine what type of damage is incurred in the individual,” he said. Lawyer Ok-hyung Lee, who served as the legal representative of the Ministry of Justice, said: “The damage in the case of stay of execution is personal and specific damage,” he said. “Because the salary is normally paid and only the labor authority is excluded, there are no damages that can be recovered in the end.” In addition, he argued, “if the disciplinary committee makes a new provision two days later, the order to suspend the execution of the duty will not be effective, so there is no need to suspend the execution immediately (due to the provision made by the minister Chu) “.
The dispute between the two parties also took place over the so-called “Judges’ Inspection Documents”. General Yoon said in particular that “this is a one-time report that was created and discarded according to the judicial time of the judges, and it was not consistent accumulated (created) information to monitor the judges.” However, he admitted the fact that Yun ordered the preparation of the report to the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office.
In response to this, the Ministry of Justice emphasized that the drafting of the document was not an act based on law, saying: “According to the Law of the Prosecutor’s Office, the prosecutor’s office does not have the authority to collect information on judges.” Furthermore, before the court hearing on that day, he submitted a request for Koo Seok-myeong to the court, arguing that “it is necessary to disclose whether the judge’s inspection document has been written before and when it was first reported.”
Jooyoung yoon reporter [email protected]
Choi Na-sil reporter [email protected]
You can also watch the Naver Et news edited by Hankook Ilbo.
Issues that may interest you
[ad_2]
