[ad_1]
[앵커]
Yesterday’s Judicial Branch meeting was rejected on the agenda to issue an opinion on the ‘issues of the judge’s inspection’, which is mentioned as the reason for President Yoon Suk-yeol’s disciplinary action. It was confirmed that not only the position on the matter was rejected, but also the agenda to publicize the purpose of not giving an opinion. Any conclusion is interpreted as a concern for the possibility of political use. Reporter Han Dong-oh. In a videoconference in which 120 judges from all over the country participated, the ‘suspicion of the Inspection of the Judicial Power’ was a hot topic that amendments were proposed several times and the discussions were repeated for a long time despite the voting order. The title of the first agenda proposed at the scene was “Agenda to guarantee the independence of the judges and the fairness of the trial.” The intention was to actively respond to the allegations of the judge’s inspection, but the vote was rejected. Since then, the agenda for a slight revision of the text has been proposed twice, but none obtained a majority of votes. So this time, the agenda to reveal the purpose of not deciding a position was a new topic of discussion. It is to disclose the purpose of ‘We will not express any opinion in consideration of the fact that the case is subject to trial by the Seoul Administrative Court.’ However, it was rejected after debate and voting, and similar agendas were approved three times with a slight revision of the phrase again, but not all were resolved. In this regard, an official from the Council of Magistrates stressed that the core of the debate was how to protect the independence and political neutrality of judges, and that all judges were concerned about the possibility of political use and distortion. At the same time, he drew a line that the seven amendments to the prosecution documents were rejected or that some reports expressed as ‘7 defeats before 7’ had a significant difference in environment, as well as in content and results. of the discussion. There has been no debate as to whether the controversial impeachment document is legitimate. In this regard, Minister Chu published an article on social networks, evaluating that the doubts and concerns of the judges were left behind. It was also criticized that the agenda was to ask the position of the Judicial Power in the face of the crisis that judicial justice could be shaken when the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office collects information from the judges to boost public opinion. It is also unusual for the representatives of the judges to come together to further explain the details of the private meeting discussion. As such, we are wary of the possibility of political use in the conflict between Minister Choo Mi-ae and President Yoon Suk-yeol, and the controversy is expected to continue for some time regardless of intention. YTN Han Dong-oh[[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
