[ad_1]
The group opposition movement of prosecutors against the job exclusion of President Yoon Seok-yeol is getting stronger.
Yesterday, from the top prosecutor to the pyeong prosecutor, statements were spilled throughout the day.
The conflict continues even because of the suspicion of the investigative documents of the judges published by President Yoon.
I’ll connect the reporters. Reporter Kang Hee-kyung!
Let’s first look at the prosecution’s movement.
Is the voice of senior prosecutors’ reaction to front-line prosecutors growing?
[기자]Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae demanded disciplinary action against Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol and suspended his duties, and prosecutors protested in unison that it was illegal or unfair.
In particular, this time, not only the prosecutor, but also the senior prosecutor who reports directly to the attorney general are speaking out.
Yesterday, six high-ranking prosecutors, including Seoul Senior Prosecutors Officer Cho Sang-cheol, made a statement and requested that the Minister of Justice, Choo Mi-ae, enthusiastically recommend an assessment and reconsideration of the situation and the current actions.
The 17 front-line chief district attorneys and the senior prosecutors and 27 mid-level prosecutors also joined the class action with the intent that Minister Chu’s actions against President Yoon were illegal or unfair.
Statements were also issued by the deputy directors general and supervisors at the national level of prosecutors and the Seoul Western District Prosecutor’s Office and the Busan District Attorney’s Office.
Group statements from review prosecutors are also being released.
Starting yesterday morning with the Uijeongbu District Prosecutor’s Office, the Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, Cheongju, Ulsan and Suwon district prosecutors also held review meetings and urged Minister Chu to withdraw the measures.
In particular, the names of Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office Lee Seong-yoon and Seoul Eastern District Prosecutor Kim Gwan-jeong were omitted from the prosecution’s statement, but the respective prosecutors also announced their positions.
Prosecutors from the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, who made a statement last night, said Minister Chu’s actions undermined the prosecution’s neutrality and were illegal or unfair due to the lack of legitimacy of purpose and procedure, and called for cancel it immediately.
There are already more than 50 declarations, including prosecutors and prosecutors, as well as human rights inspectors and individuals in each office.
It appears that the venues that held the meeting last night will be making statements starting this morning, and there are plans for review meetings at various venues today, so the backlash is expected to continue.
[앵커]In the midst of this, yesterday, President Yoon Seok-yeol released a document raising the suspicions of the ‘temple of the judge’.
The Ministry of Justice asked the Great Sword to investigate this, right?
[기자]Yes, among the allegations presented by the Minister of Justice, Choo Mi-ae, as a basis for disciplinary claims and exclusion from duties, the most controversial was the suspicion of judicial inspection.
This is the content that was recently released this time.
As the controversy over the illegal inspection continued, President Yoon Seok-yeol’s side filed a lawsuit to cancel the job exclusion action yesterday and revealed the entire document.
The 9-page A4 document contains the school of which 37 judges in charge of 9 related cases, important judgments and opinions are written under the title of ‘Analysis of the judiciary in special important cases and public safety’.
It also contains how he has spoken out on important political cases, such as the Sewol ferry and the KTU, and the history of the activities of the Korea Legal Research Society is outstanding.
The ‘History of the water judge’ is also mentioned, which was the most problematic.
General Yoon said there is no problem because it is the lawyers’ job to determine the court’s propensity to release personal information publicly.
Shortly after President Yoon’s release of the documents, the Ministry of Justice established a request for investigation.
It was not about prosecution or disciplinary action, but about investigation, and he requested an investigation from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office on charges of obstruction of the exercise of the right to abuse of authority.
The Justice Ministry said it was a very serious offense, saying that it contained sensitive personal information that could affect the trial, and that there were cases in which a judge who handed down a sentence against the prosecution was attacked for belonging to the Korean Association of Legal Research.
[앵커]Will the disciplinary deliberation against Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol take place next week?
[기자]Yes, Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae decided to organize a disciplinary review committee for President Yoon Seok-yeol on the 2nd of the following month and notified President Yoon or a special counsel of his attendance.
When President Yoon gave a legal response, such as requesting disciplinary action and requesting a stay of execution the day after his exclusion from work, he immediately notified the date of the disciplinary hearing and launched a counterattack.
The stay of execution is cited, interpreted as hastening President Yoon’s disciplinary outcome before returning to work.
President Yoon said that he was notified that the Disciplinary Deliberation Committee would be held at 4 p.m. on the 2nd, and that it has not been decided whether or not he will attend.
Attorneys Wan-kyu Lee and Seok-woong Lee, who represent administrative litigation, are expected to attend the disciplinary committee as special attorneys.
The Disciplinary Committee is made up of 7 members, including the Minister of Justice, the president.
Since Minister Chu is a disciplinary complainant, he cannot participate in the deliberation of the case, and the disciplinary decision is made by the majority of the attending members.
Inside and outside the legal profession, there are observations that the disciplinary committee will decide to remove Yun at the will of Minister Chu, and that Minister Chu will immediately propose him to the president.
Another noise arose in the process as it was reported that the schedule of the Inspection Commission of the Ministry of Justice was delayed with respect to the schedule of the disciplinary commission.
Originally, the inspection committee was scheduled to meet today, but the Ministry of Justice had temporarily postponed the meeting.
However, when the schedule for convening the disciplinary commission was known, the external prosecutors belonging to the prosecution commission of the Ministry of Justice protested and requested the Ministry of Justice to open a temporary control commission before the disciplinary commission.
The Ministry of Justice recently changed the provision to “receive” from the provision to receive advice from the Supervisory Commission when deciding disciplinary actions on important matters.
Criticism continued that it was a rock to discipline President Yun bypassing the supervisory commission, and it appears that such complaints even arose among the supervisory commissioners.
It is known that it is still being coordinated when the meeting of the inspection committee will take place.
Some observers say that if a meeting is held, President Yun’s disciplinary action may be stopped depending on how the results turn out.
YTN Kang Hee-kyung[[email protected]]it is.
※ ‘Your report becomes news’ YTN awaits your valuable report.
[카카오톡] Search YTN to add a channel [전화] 02-398-8585 [메일] [email protected] [온라인 제보] www.ytn.co.kr
