[ad_1]
At the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office on the 26th, where a prosecutor’s review meeting against the prosecutor general’s job exclusion was held, prosecutors walk down the hall with the “prosecutor’s oath.” Reporter Kim Sang-sun
There is a controversy regarding the illegality of the Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office on the 25th day that the Office of Investigative Information of the Supreme General Prosecutor’s Office (formerly the Office of Investigation Information Policy) was seized and registered in relation to the suspicion of the “ Inspection of the Judges Department ” by Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol.
Mi-ae Chu, Seok-yeol Yoon announced the release of duties
Department of Investigation, Office of Investigation Information, requesting a search warrant
Order issued within 2 hours after posting
Greater possibility of prior relationship with the Ministry of Justice
Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae announced a request for disciplinary action against President Yoon and his suspension from office at 6:05 pm on the 24th. At this time, the suspicion of the ” judicial office “. However, the headquarters of the Prosecutor’s Office entered into seizure and search from the morning of the 25th. It is impossible due to time to hear the announcement of the suspension of work and make a search and obtain a court order. Consequently, it was observed that the Prosecutor’s Office had advance knowledge of the exclusion of President Yoon from functions, and that the inspection data related to the inspection allegations of the Judicial Branch of the Ministry of Justice may have been delivered in advance. If there were the command of Minister Chu in this process, it would be a violation of the Law of the Prosecutor’s Office. This is because, according to the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office, etc., the seat of the prosecutor’s office is an organization under the command of the president, and the minister is stipulated that only the president can command in specific cases under current law. .
In fact, it was confirmed that the order of seizure and search of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office was issued two hours after the decision to suspend the functions of the executive. According to JoongAng Ilbo’s coverage on the 26th, the inspection team led by the Chief of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, Han Dong-soo, requested a seizure and search warrant. The Seoul Central District Court decided to subpoena some and fire some around 8pm that day. The judge in charge was Kim Dong-hyun, the deputy judge in charge of the arrest warrants of the Seoul Central District Court. In July, he issued an arrest warrant for former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae, who was charged with attempted coercion, and stated that “investigation of the arrest is considered inevitable at this stage, even to restore confidence. of the press and the prosecution “. Criticized.
As it turned out that the time when Minister Chu announced the exclusion of duties and the time to request and issue a seizure and search warrant was the same day (24), the suspicion that there was a prior relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution is more likely to be true.
It is also noted that the prosecutor’s office did not obtain the approval of the superior prosecutor’s office as the prosecutor’s office shifted from the prosecutor’s office to the investigation through seizure and search. If he were to be barred from being suspended, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Cho Nam-gwan (Deputy Chief Prosecutor) should also get approval, but Representative Jeon Joo-hye said, “Chief Prosecutors, such as Deputy General Cho They were unaware of the execution of the seizure and search order. ”
During the execution of a seizure and search warrant, the head of the investigation team, who expressed objections, was excluded from the work. Heo Jeong-soo, the chief prosecutor’s office, ordered the execution of a seizure and search warrant to team leader Jeong Tae-won under command, but when he raised the issue, two people, including manager Heo, were directly executed. . Team leader Jeong later posted a post on the prosecution’s internal network, saying: “Regarding the position system similar to suspension of duty, the court must consider whether there is a high probability of receiving an action. severe disciplinary “and” request for disciplinary resolution and position without listening to a call. There are cases in which the provision of the position system was canceled in case of cancellation. ”They pointed out the injustice of the suspension of functions of Minister Chu.
◆ Request for convocation before the Inspection and Discipline Commission= The members of the External Inspection Commission of the Ministry of Justice (Supervisory Commission), scheduled to be convened on the 10th of the following month, protested that “if it is carried out after the Disciplinary Commission of the Prosecutor’s Office on the 2nd of the following month , it will only be a coincidence for the assortment ”. If the supervisory commission meets first and makes a decision against Minister Chu’s disposition, the result is noteworthy, as Minister Chu may be on the defensive.
Reporters Kang Kwang-woo and Jung Yu-jin [email protected]
[ad_2]
