[ad_1]
Miae Chu-Seokyeol Yoon▶ Click here to enlarge
Attention is being drawn to how the match between the Minister of Justice, Choo Mi-ae, and President Yoon will be decided, while on the 30th the trial for stay of execution by disposition of the exclusion of the prosecutor takes place general of its functions.
It is not easy to predict when the results of the trial will come out, as well as a consultative meeting of the Commission of Prosecutors of the Ministry of Justice and a disciplinary committee of prosecutors.
Judgment and Discipline Committee approached President Yoon Suk-yeol▶ Click here to enlarge
◇ If the stay of execution is cited, the opportunity to reverse Seok-yeol Yoon
On the morning of this day, the Seoul Administrative Court opens a hearing on the case of suspension of execution of the effect of the exclusion of functions by President Yoon.
It is not possible to predict when the final conclusion will come out within the legal profession, but considering the urgency and materiality of the matter, it is highly likely that the judiciary will reach a conclusion on this day or the next day at the latest.
However, in light of the complexity of the case and the length of the hearing, the possibility that the court is imminent to the decision of the disciplinary committee and cannot pass judgment or conclude at all cannot be excluded.
If the court cites President Yoon’s request for a stay of execution, he will immediately return to the post of attorney general.
This could be an opportunity to reinforce the logic that the exclusion of duties is unfair in a situation where there is a lot of critical public opinion about Minister Chu’s push actions. The effect of putting pressure on the disciplinary committee of the Ministry of Justice, which is expected to be severely punished, can also be expected.
Minister Chu Mi-ae is in his thoughts▶ Click here to enlarge
◇ If ruled out, it seems inevitable that Suk-yeol Yoon’s severe discipline
However, as the suspension of duties of President Yoon is a temporary measure that accompanies a disciplinary claim, the suspension of the suspension of functions is only effective for several days before the punishment is imposed.
If the disciplinary committee, which takes place two days later, imposes severe disciplinary action, such as suspension, impeachment, or removal, Yun again loses the position of president and the situation returns to the origin.
In particular, if the request for a stay of execution is dismissed, the onus is sure to fall on President Yun’s severe disciplinary action. The disciplinary committee against President Yun will be held on the 2nd of the following month, two days later. Since Minister Chu is a disciplinary plaintiff, he cannot participate in the deliberation of the case.
Yun is expected to sue again against the disciplinary committee’s results, but aside from this, a blow in the public opinion war is expected.
Until the disciplinary committee, the judge may not be able to reach a conclusion. In this case, the request for suspension of the exclusion of duties may be rejected according to the decision of the disciplinary committee, which could be disadvantageous for President Yun.
◇ Inspection latitude variable … May be a burden for severe disciplinary policy
It is also observed that the advice of the Inspection Commission of the Ministry of Justice, which is scheduled for the 1st of next month, can also be variable. Some inspectors are known to have recently requested a summons with the Ministry of Justice saying: “Please open the prosecutor’s office before the prosecutor’s disciplinary committee is held.”
The opinion of the oversight committee is a recommendation and does not bind the decision of the discipline committee. However, it may represent a burden to the disciplinary committee if you present a negative opinion on the content of the inspection submitted as the basis for President Yun’s disciplinary action, or if you do not agree with the severe disciplinary policy.
A problem can also be formally raised by the fact that the prosecutor’s office changed the provisions related to the advisory committee of the Ministry of Justice earlier this month from mandatory regulations to discretionary regulations.
Earlier this month, the Ministry of Justice received suspicions that he would have laid the groundwork for President Yoon’s disciplinary action by revising the prosecution rule to “ receive ” to “ receive ” from the advisory committee of the oversight committee. during the important business inspection earlier this month.
[연합뉴스]
Copyright ⓒ Yonhap News. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited
