[ad_1]
[앵커]
Although the disciplinary committee deliberating on Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol’s disciplinary action was delayed from yesterday to the 10th, Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae and Yoon’s side continue to face the cliff. Yesterday, when Yoon filed a constitutional complaint with another question about the disciplinary committee’s procedures, Minister Choo Mi-ae filed an immediate appeal against the court’s decision to suspend his order to suspend his duties. Connect reporters. Reporter Na Hye-in! First, Minister Choo Mi-ae opposed the court’s decision to bring Yoon back to the office, right? Yes, lawyer Ok-hyung Lee, legal representative of the Minister of Justice, Choo Mi-ae, said last night that he filed an immediate appeal against the decision of the Seoul Administrative Court to stop the suspension of the work of Attorney General Yoon Seok -yeol. It means that he will be tried once again by the Seoul High Court, a higher court. Previously, Lee argued that when the court ruled that a suspension of the prosecution could create confusion in the operations of the prosecution, prosecutors who were silently carrying out their responsibilities could be misinterpreted as affected by the presidency. At the same time, they criticized the court for being influenced solely by the recent systematic expression of opinions by prosecutors across the country. However, even if you immediately appeal the decision to stay enforcement under the Administrative Procedure Act, the effect does not stop immediately. Consequently, Yun can continue to serve until the higher court ruling returns. Before this, Mr. Yun filed a constitutional complaint saying there was a problem with the disciplinary process, right? Yes, Mr. Yoon, who previously responded to Minister Chu’s order to suspend his duties through an administrative lawsuit, has now asserted that the disciplinary deliberation itself is unconstitutional. I filed a constitutional petition saying that some provisions of the Prosecutor’s Disciplinary Law, which stipulates the composition of prosecutors and disciplinary members, are contrary to the Constitution. As President Moon Jae-in emphasized procedural legitimacy and fairness in President Yoon’s disciplinary phase, it is interpreted as an intention to continue highlighting this part. Yoon argued that most members of the disciplinary committee were nominated and commissioned by the Minister of Justice, who could demand disciplinary action from the president, so fairness could not be guaranteed. At the same time, he applied for an interim injunction, requesting the nomination or appointment of a disciplinary committee member by Chu after President Yoon’s request for disciplinary action until a constitutional appeal decision is made. However, it is unknown whether the result of the request for a precautionary measure of suspension of validity issued by the Constitutional Court will take longer than the case of suspension of execution by the court before the disciplinary commission scheduled for 10 days. Did you say that the telegram from the new Vice Minister of Justice, Yong-gu Lee, became controversial over President Yoon’s constitutional complaint? Yes, yesterday, Vice Minister of Justice Lee Yong-gu, who attended the Legislative Judicial Committee of the National Assembly, was caught chatting with someone via a mobile phone messaging telegram. Looking at the captured screen, when someone in the group chat room asked if Mr. Yoon’s constitutional petition would affect disciplinary deliberation, he replied that it was generally a handshake chosen by the distrustful. It is controversial because the name of Chief of Detectives Lee Jong-geun, an executive with the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, was picked up among fellow conversations. Criticism emerged from within and outside the prosecutor’s office that Vice Minister Yoon, a member of the Attorney General’s disciplinary committee, was discussing disciplinary measures with the chief attorney general, the attorney general’s office. On the date of the controversy, Vice Minister Lee and the Ministry of Justice explained that the nickname stored as ‘Lee Jong-geun 2’ was used by Lee’s wife Park Eun-jung, the inspector of the Department of Justice. Let’s hear this deputy minister’s comment for yourself. Director Lee, the person in question, also jumped in to say that it wasn’t him she had spoken to in the group room. However, even if the other party is in charge of Park Eun-jung, there are criticisms as to whether it is right for Vice Minister Lee, who will serve as chair of the disciplinary deliberation process, to have a conversation with the person who was in charge of the investigation into the supervision of President Yoon. If the disciplinary committee is opened, President Yoon is likely to appeal against the loan, and the confrontation between the two sides over the deliberation process is expected to continue. So far, the Ministry of Social Affairs has handed it over. ※ ‘Your report becomes news’ YTN is waiting for your valuable report.
[카카오톡] Search YTN to add a channel [전화] 02-398-8585 [메일] [email protected] [온라인 제보] www.ytn.co.kr
