[ad_1]
[앵커]
Tomorrow, the disciplinary committee is expected to discuss “suspected inspection by a judge” as a key disciplinary reason. General Yoon’s side plans to focus on highlighting that there is a problem with the prosecution and the disciplinary claim process, so fierce battles are expected even over whether due process was followed. This is reporter Han Dong-oh. There are six reasons for President Yoon Suk-yeol’s disciplinary claim, as revealed by Minister Choo Mi-ae: ‘inappropriate contact with the media owner’ and ‘interference with inspection’. Among these, one of the key points is the suspicion of the judges. The document prepared and shared by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Investigative and Information Policy Officer under the direction of President Yoon, details the origins of the judges of the judicial magistracy, the main sentences and the opinions. Subjective expressions such as “from the Korean Law Research Association or rational”, and non-public information such as “including a list of water judges” became controversial. In response to Minister Chu’s claim that it was an “illegal court inspection”, Yun confronted it as “reference material to facilitate the upholding of the indictment.” The judges, allegedly suspicious of the inspections, have retained their official position for fear of possible political use. The question that will lead to a more intense battle is whether the inspection procedure was legitimate. General Yoon argues that the Ministry of Justice did not report the misconduct charges, so the opportunity to be called was not guaranteed, and that the prosecutor did not follow due process, such as the circumstances under which the supervisor was dismissed. Regarding the suspicion of the judge’s inspection, it is believed that the results of the inspection were released without investigation by the author of the document, and the content of the legal review report was distorted, so the conclusion was current. On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice has tried to give Mr. Yoon the opportunity to call several times, but it is the position that has refused to receive the prospective visitor investigation form and face-to-face investigation. In addition, it is contested that the principles and procedures established by the Law on Prosecutors and Discipline have been observed, such as investigating several key reference persons after receiving a complaint from an external organization and confirming the misconduct charges with objective evidence. Yoon also argued that although Minister Chu should be excluded from all proceedings after a disciplinary complaint, he was involved in disciplinary deliberations, such as the appointment of a term and its postponement. On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice refuted that it is natural for the minister to call a meeting and proceed with procedures such as calling a meeting before appointing an interim representative, since the minister cannot participate in the deliberation of the disciplinary committee. In particular, in disputes over disciplinary actions, the outcome is likely to be a key issue that will determine the fate of President Yoon, as there are many cases where the outcomes are clearly different depending on whether proper procedures are followed. YTN Han Dong-oh[[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
