[ad_1]
[앵커]
At the ordinary meeting of the Delegation of National Judges, the suspicion of ‘inspection of the judge’ was discussed as the official agenda, but it was decided not to express its official position. Although some discussions were held due to the approach of the issue by some representative judges, the agenda was rejected as most of them objected to being cautious when expressing their opinions. I’ll connect the reporters. Reporter Kang Hee-kyung! At today’s judicial delegation meeting, ‘the suspicion of the judge’s inspection’ was discussed, but could no opinions be gathered? Yes, the Meeting of the National Delegation of Judges was held for almost 9 hours from 10 am to 7 pm by videoconference. It is a conference body where representative judges from each level of the courts discuss current issues of the judiciary. It is made up of 125 representatives from courts across the country, of which 120 attended the meeting. In particular, in the course of today’s meeting, in addition to the eight agendas proposed and announced in advance, the representative of the Jeju district law judges proposed and agreed with nine members, and the additional agenda was proposed as ‘Agenda to ensure the independence of judges and fair justice’. It was decided to formally discuss the allegations of the so-called ‘judge’s inspection’, which was mentioned as one of the attorney general’s disciplinary charges. Around 3pm, discussions of the ‘Judge’s Inspection’ allegations took place longer than expected. Those who agreed with the resolution, such as the proponent of the agenda, argued that the prosecution’s issue of collecting information from judges was inappropriate and that it could violate the independence of judges in the sense that it handles non-public materials collected in other processes regardless of trial. However, many judges emphasized that the Seoul Administrative Court should be cautious in expressing views on the independence of the trial, as a trial for the cancellation of an order to stay the performance of duty is ongoing and additional lawsuits may be initiated. They also expressed concern that the resolutions of the Delegates of the National Judges could be used politically. After discussion, a vote first took place on the original draft. A vote was taken on the phrase “I strongly oppose any attempt to unfairly influence the independence and fairness of the trial in violation of the separation of powers and procedural fairness”, and the majority of the judges voted against. Three or four more amendments came out, which revised the phrase: “As the collection and presentation of information from judges by the prosecution may infringe the independence of the judges and the impartiality of the trial, it should be avoided.” In the end, the delegation of the Judiciary did not have a separate opinion. In addition to the results of the vote, the representatives of the judges agreed that the judges must comply with their obligations of political neutrality and distrust the political interpretation of this conclusion. It was analyzed that if the judges decided that the document was an inspector and decided to condemn it, it would be used as the basis for disciplinary action against Yun in the disciplinary committee to be held on the 10th. However, as the representative judges concluded that they should not seek opinions, power was given to President Yoon Suk-yeol, who has insisted that it is one of the duties to maintain the prosecution. President Yun’s disciplinary committee is scheduled to be held at 10:30 a.m. on the 10th. The interest is in how the results of the discussions in the delegation of the judiciary will affect Yun’s discipline. So far at the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, YTN Kang Hee-kyung[[email protected]]it is. ※ ‘Your report becomes news’ YTN is waiting for your valuable report.
[카카오톡] Search YTN to add a channel [전화] 02-398-8585 [메일] [email protected] [온라인 제보] www.ytn.co.kr
