[ad_1]
Enter 2020.11.27 11:36
2020.11.27 11:40 modified
Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol filed a lawsuit for cancellation of disposition and a request for stay of execution in disobedience to the order of Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae to stay the execution of his duties.
The Seoul Administrative Court announced on the 27th that the case was assigned to the fourth administrative department (presiding judge Jo Mi-yeon). However, there were no timetables such as the date of examination of the case of stay of execution and the date of the pleading of the lawsuit.
On the 26th, President Yoon filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court to cancel the suspension of his duties through his lawyer Wan-kyu Lee, a lawyer from Dongin Law Firm. The day before, he also filed a request for suspension of the execution requesting that the effect of the suspension of functions be suspended.
General Yoon’s position is that the six facts that Minister Chu has cited as grounds for disciplinary action do not constitute grounds for disciplinary action, and that even if some facts are admitted, it is not enough to suspend the president’s functions. The most controversial reason for the disciplinary action was the “ Illegal Inspection of the Judicial Power of Critical Cases ”, which was made as a reference in the process of support to the Department of Power and Anti-Corruption of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office and the Department of Public Investigation of The time. ‘It is a position that cannot be considered a temple because it was written for a judge’s reference.
The day before, President Yoon released the document ‘Analysis of the Judiciary in Special Major Cases and Public Safety’. In the document, there is a section written by a judge of the Nongdan Judicial case, “Including the list of judges in the year 16 of the Ministry of Government Administration. The inquisitorial judge was not mentioned in the ‘Case of the Fatherland’ or the ‘Case of Ulsan ‘.
In important cases, the prosecution investigated the school the judiciary attended, important decisions, family relationships, and the characteristics of the judicial process. The judges’ comment included content such as, “I was from the Korean Legal Research Association, but judged it to be reasonable,” “I am not hostile to the prosecution, but I listen to many of the arguments from the lawyers,” and “No presence in the trial. “
Attorney Wan-kyu Lee said, “I thought I would open the document and leave it to the judgment of the common sense of the general public, whether it is a temple or not.” It’s unfair to be a temple just because there is personal information in the job data. “
