[ad_1]
Entry 2020.11.25 12:12 | Revision 2020.11.25 12:19
According to law enforcement officials on the 25th, among the five reasons Minister Yoon was excluded from the job, the “ responsibility for illegal inspections against judges in important cases ” is the first known content. According to Minister Chu’s report, the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office for Investigation and Information Policies produced a report on judges of the judiciary in the main cases, including the Ulsan electoral intervention case and the case related to the former minister. of Justice Cho Kook.
In the report, △ the content of judgments in political cases △ whether to join the Korean Law Research Association △ family relations △ sepyeong △ personal hobbies △ whether they were judges who caused the water, etc. In the days of the head of the Supreme Court, Yang Seung-tae, the water judge is an internal document that was used by the court administration as a basis for damaging staff when analyzing the propensities of judges critical of the Supreme Court Yang Seung- tae. President Yoon ordered that the report be transmitted to the Department of Anti-Corruption Forces and said that he is responsible for the illegal inspections.
In this sense, the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office finds itself in the position that “a temple is a great leap forward.” The explanation is that it only helped to maintain the persecution by sending reference materials to the Ministry of Forces and Anti-Corruption, which are identified through the Internet and legal personnel.
In the legal community, it is noted that capturing the propensity of the judiciary and personal information in a specific case is quite different from illegal ‘inspection’ in that it is a normal matter for prosecutors to hold a trial.
The majority of the views of the prosecution is that it is a normal task to understand the propensity of the court as part of maintaining the prosecution in court. It is explained that it is a part that must be assumed, of course, whether the judge looks strictly at the evidentiary part, or if it is a judge who emphasizes oral defense in a situation in which a large number of opinions must be presented .
As such, it is noted that whether or not it is illegal will depend on what the purpose of the delicacy is. It is explained that the sentence will vary depending on whether the collection of opinions is to prevent the fulfillment of duties with malicious intent towards a certain person, or to maintain the public service activities of the prosecution according to the propensity of the judge. Furthermore, the presiding judge drew a line to the effect that, of course, in the sense that he is a public figure, not an ordinary person, the trial-related ‘public official sepyeong’ is a very different dimension of the temple. civil.
A lawyer for the prosecution said: “If you capture the views of a specific judge and release them to the media, it may be a problem, but it is illegal for the prosecutor who prosecuted a case to capture the propensity of the judge in the judiciary. an absurd story, “he said.
Some point out that the information collected by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office for Investigation Policy and Information Policy is not at the level of ‘intellect’, but only at the level of information exposed in the media and the Internet. The predecessor of the Bureau of Investigation and Information Policy was the Bureau of Criminal Information Planning, which constantly raised the issue of collecting and managing trends in every field not related to criminal charges and using them for political purposes.
As a result, it was reorganized into the Office of Research Information Policy in February last year and was reduced to about 30 people. The Commission for the Reform of Judicial Prosecutors of the Ministry of Justice of the Homeland also recommended in October last year that the information gathering function of the Prosecutor’s Office, which supports direct investigation departments such as the Special Ministry, be abolished.
The acting prosecutor who requested anonymity said: “As the criminal information planning office was reduced to the investigative information policy office, the authority was reduced or long. The collection of information is the degree to which it is collected information on the Internet and the facts are determined based on it. ” It is a comment that can be misinterpreted as if the investigative and information policy officer’s office handed over the inspection information to the anti-corruption department. “
Some pointed out that Minister Chu should have explained the events in more detail than in the briefing the day before.
A lawyer in Seocho-dong said: “If you just collect information exposed to the media, there will be no problem, but if it is more than that, the problem will be great, but did you literally leave the scene without asking questions and dismissing ‘suspicion’? ” He said: “Illegal is a reason for disciplinary action, but suspicion. It cannot be a reason.” The incumbent judge said: “If the inspection is true, it is a serious crime that shakes the judiciary. If you look closely at the briefing, you can use ‘information gathering’ and ‘inspection’ mixed in and there is no explanation.” “Inspection is a very political term, but the facts are clearer. Shouldn’t it be disclosed?”
