[ad_1]
Attorney General Choo Mi-ae again invoked the authority to lead the investigation. This is the second time after the case of ‘Trying to Force’ by a reporter on Channel A. The investigative command power was activated immediately, but in reality there were two cases. One is to thoroughly investigate the suspicions of hiding from prosecutors and politicians in connection with the Lyme incident, and the other is to thoroughly investigate the suspicions of the people around Yun. The investigation command authority refers to the authority of the Minister of Justice to direct and stop the investigation of the prosecution in a specific case based on article 8 of the Law of the Prosecutor’s Office, which establishes that “the Minister of Justice can direct and supervise the attorney general in specific cases. ” The investigative command authority has the problem of fundamentally undermining the impartiality and political neutrality of the investigation, so that even countries with command authority regulations have largely refrained from exercising it. Until last year, the attorney general’s invocation of the authority to lead an investigation was only once in the history of the Korean government. The first time the Minister of Justice initiated the investigation command was under the leadership of Dongguk University professor Kang Jeong-gu, under the leadership of Minister Cheon Jeong-bae during the participatory government. At the time, Attorney General Kim Jong-bin even resigned while protesting the invocation of command.
Until now, the command power of the investigation has been used to a very limited extent. However, Minister Chu, who has been in office for only nine months, has already held his third command. In particular, the Ministry of Justice commissioned an investigation to the South District Prosecutor’s Office, excluding the command of the president, as the minister in command of prosecutors other than the president. Consequently, there are criticisms that Attorney General Chu is overlapping the authority to direct the investigation. The general assessment of judicial officials is that the political attorney general regularly excludes the attorney general from the line of investigation and provides a guideline for conducting an investigation that is truly tailored to the taste of the regime. The frequent use of investigative command authority is the will to direct the prosecution, a quasi-judicial institution. The invocation of the investigative command right is likely to be interpreted as political intervention to oust Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol.
Germany under the Nazis has had the highest command of the Minister of Justice in history. This is a historical case that symbolically represents the meaning of the invocation of command of the Minister of Justice in specific cases. Attorney General Chu, who called for a reform to the prosecution with only his mouth open, is blocking the actual reform of the prosecution. It is an embarrassment to the political attorney general It is understood in this context that the Seoul Southern District Prosecutor’s Office, which is investigating the Lime Asset Management Fund fraud case, expressed its appreciation on the 22nd and said: “Politics covered the accusation “. He also pointed out that there is a side that is difficult to convince when looking at the case selection, etc., despite the fact that Minister Chu conducted the investigation on the case related to President Yoon’s family.
On the 22nd, Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol also fired a direct shot at the Office of State Administration for the activation of the investigative command authority by Attorney General Choo Mi-ae, depriving the authority investigation command. General Yoon said in the National Office on the day: “From a legal point of view, the Attorney General is not a subordinate of the Minister of Justice” and “It is certainly illegal in terms of showing motives and purpose.” He said that “if the president is a subordinate of the minister, the investigation will be a distant story of the political neutrality of the prosecution and the independence of the judiciary,” he said. Regarding Minister Chu’s exercise of investigative command power with the ‘prison letter’ from former Star Mobility CEO Kim Bong-hyun, who is on trial for crimes such as embezzlement and fraud, Depriving the chairman of command and refuting the accusation is not wise. “He said:” Most prosecutors and legal professionals believe that it is illegal to go against the Law of the Prosecutor’s Office. “
The main objective of the prosecution reform is to respect people’s human rights by strengthening the political neutrality and independence of the prosecution. To protect the neutrality and independence of the prosecution from politics, it is necessary to abolish the authority of the Attorney General to direct the investigation or limit it to a minimum. If the government-appointed political minister is in command, the prosecution will always be embroiled in political conflict. Therefore, it is important to prevent the right of the minister to command the investigation in the first place through legalization. The control and balance of the attorney general must also be carried out in a way that does not run the risk of violating the political neutrality and independence of the prosecution.
Copyright © Legal Journal Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited
