Researchers of the Supreme Law “No problem with judges” -JoongAng Ilbo



[ad_1]

While collecting opinions on what will be the discussion agenda in the Delegation of National Judges that will be held on the 7th, several judges oppose the inclusion of the so-called ‘document of propensity to judge’ by the courts. There were also many opinions that it was difficult to admit the illegality of the inspections by the judges, which was pointed out as one of the reasons for the disciplinary request and suspension of duties of the Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol. Following the decision of Judge Cho Mi-yeon of the Seoul Administrative Court to stay the execution of President Yoon’s suspension of duties, analysts say that front-line judges are empowering President Yoon.

Discussion of the proposed agenda for the meeting of the Judiciary
Judges across the country have a lot of opposition to adoption.

The day after Kim Nam-guk “Please move the judge”
Proposals for discussion arise at the meeting of judges and controversy

According to a report by JoongAng Ilbo on the 3rd, Judge Chang Chang-guk, head of the Jeju District Court, who is a member of the National Judges Delegation, said on the court’s internal online network on the 27th of last month: “ The ‘important judicial analysis data’ created by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Investigation and Information Policy is illegal. I propose to publish it as the meeting agenda. “The reason for the proposal was” to share the awareness that the act of collecting and presenting information about the personal life or disposition of judges, such as family relationships, hobbies and activities of the investigation clubs, by the prosecution can infringe the independence of the judges and the impartiality of the trial. “I wrote it.

However, the agenda did not meet the requirements of the statutes of the delegation of the judiciary: ‘The agreement of at least 5 people, including the proponent, must be obtained 7 days before the meeting (November 30)’ (Article 6, paragraph 1). Only three representatives agreed.

“Judge’s documents, fear of breach of trial” Opinion … Possibility of the agenda being adopted on the ground

However, on the day of the meeting, the president may present the order of the day ex officio, and the judges who participated in the field may propose it with the consent of nine people. On the 3rd, the Secretary of Public Affairs of the Delegation of Judges said: “In light of the subject and scope of the collection of information by the prosecution on judges, there are opinions that this issue undermines the independence of the trial , and yet as the trial is ongoing, there are opinions to approach it carefully. . It is possible to confirm whether or not an agenda on this topic has been proposed on the day of the ordinary meeting ”.

As a result of collecting opinions from the representatives of the judges to date, it was investigated that a majority of judges opposed the approval of the bill. One judge said: “The majority views of the sole Justices of the Supreme Court (investigating justices) who assist the justices in their judicial affairs are also inappropriate for the Judges Delegation Meeting to form an official opinion on the inspection schedule. illegal “.

Many of the single judges cited four reasons as their evidence base.

▶ The content of the documents that have been disclosed so far cannot be considered to have significant violations. ▶ Since the current criminal procedure law adopts the party structure, it is possible that the prosecutor, who is part of the trial, has prepared a document that identifies the judge’s propensity. ▶ If objective facts are not disclosed and you respond only with facts reported by some non-data media such as fact reports or review reports, it may place a burden on the lead court in charge of hearing specific cases. ▶ It is a case that has already become a political issue, so there is a possibility that the court could be used politically. Furthermore, it was felt that if the delegation of the judiciary adopted it as an agenda that day, a thorough investigation into a suspected phone call from Representative Kim Nam-guk should be discussed.

Many of the judges presiding over the Busan District Court also objected. Deputy Judge Han said: “No matter how much the judicial branch resolves into a neutral expression, it is clear that the political world will transform it into a supportive opinion and use it politically.” The Suncheon Branch of the Gwangju District Court said that among the judges who voiced their opinions, there were many objections at a ratio of 3 to 1.

However, the Seoul High Court expressed a prudent opinion. He pointed out that it is necessary to keep the forum open, although a resolution will not necessarily be reached, since it is a matter that could damage the neutrality of the trial or the independence of the judges.

The timing suggested by Head Judge Chang is also subtle. On the 26th of last month, General Yoon released an internal report titled “ Analysis of the Judiciary in Major Special and Public Safety Cases, ” and then a member of the Democratic Party, Kim Nam-guk, made a phone call with someone, saying, “ The judges must move. Even lawyers who used to be judges should move. It was the day after that it was pointed out that the judges induce a collective action, saying: ‘We must have a war of public opinion.’ However, it has not been confirmed whether Representative Kim and Chief Judge Jang communicated in advance.

A judge working in the metropolitan area said: “Just as a judge from the Korean Legal Research Association decided to suspend President Yoon’s suspension from office in accordance with law and conscience, the adoption of this agenda should not be divided, but that a reasonable judgment based on the facts must be made. I will.”

In response, Judge Song Gyeong-geun, head of the Cheongju District Court, said, “There was a situation that could be suspicious enough for the prosecution, the prosecution, to inspect the judge, the agency that is trying it. We enthusiastically appeal to express concern about the violation of independence. ”

Kangsoo Cho, Social Media Editor [email protected]




[ad_2]