[ad_1]
Possibility of being designated as an agenda on the site.
“Should be discussed” vs. “should be careful” opinions are strict
viewer
While some judges criticize the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office’s suspicion of “judge inspections,” attention is being paid to whether the issue will be discussed at the meeting of judges’ delegates on the 7th.
According to the legal community, on the 6th, the meeting of the delegation of the Judicial Power, in which selected representative judges of courts of various levels discuss pending matters of the Judicial Power, will be carried out with burns due to the influence of the new coronavirus infection (Corona 19) at 10 am on the 7th. The delegation of the judiciary is a committee of judges organized to prepare countermeasures when suspicions of blacklisting by the judiciary arise in 2017. It became permanent in February 2018 and It consists of 117 representative judges selected by the courts of each level.
There are eight agendas that have been proposed so far: expanding the scope of sentencing, improving the qualification of judges’ work, and improving the planning judge system, but there is a possibility that suspicion of a judge’s inspection will also spread. designate as an agenda on the site. This is because a new agenda can be requested by obtaining the consent of nine other representatives at the meeting location. However, it is difficult to predict what position the meeting of judges will take, as opinions differ on whether or not it can be seen as an inspector on the nature of the document disclosed within the court.
Earlier, Judge Jang Chang-guk, Chief Judge of the Jeju District Court, posted a post on the court’s internal network on 25 last month and urged the court administration to respond, saying: “To use the propensity of the court to create a conviction, this is like saying you will manipulate the court. ” He posted again on the 3rd, asking the judges’ delegates to discuss the temple’s suspicion. Judge Song Gyeong-geun, Cheongju District Law Chief, also wrote on the internal network, saying, “I make a desperate appeal to the delegation of the national judiciary to express the principle of ‘expressing concern about the violation of the independence of judges and trials, and urge an objective and thorough investigation ‘”Chief Judge of the Seoul Central District Court, Kim Seong-hoon, and Chief Judge of Law of Changwon District, Lee Bong-soo, they also criticized the published documents and contributed their strength. Consequently, the possibility that a statement of regret or a request for an investigation of a related case could be presented as an agenda at the level of the judicial branch on that day cannot be ruled out.
On the other hand, there are many voices that look skeptically at the Supreme Swordsman’s information gathering by the judge, saying: ‘I can’t see it through the temple. Gwangju District Court Judge Cha Ki-Hyun said on the internal network: “I wonder if the prosecution can have a quiet discussion about the impact of collecting judgments on judges on the independence of judges, etc. . “, after a period of political sensitivity. It is reported that the Supreme Court justices also expressed their position that there was no major violation of the documents that have been disclosed so far, and that the prosecutor’s drafting of a document that identifies the judge’s propensity is open to hearing as part of trial preparation. Furthermore, as the suspicion of the inspection arose in the course of the conflict between the Minister of Justice, Chu Miae, and the attorney general Yoon Seok-yeol, it is constantly pointed out that “there is a possibility that the court could be used politically in a case that has become a political issue. ” Depending on how this matter is addressed in the Delegation of Judges and how the nature of the document is defined, the conflict between Minister Chu and President Yoon may face a tipping point.
The results of the delegation of the judiciary do not directly affect Yun’s disciplinary procedure, but if the document is specified as an inspection in the meeting, it empowers Minister Chu, and when it is concluded that it is not appropriate to view it as an inspection, it will highlight the unfairness of disciplinary action. It can be a base.
/ Reporter Kim Kyung-rim [email protected]
< 저작권자 ⓒ 서울경제, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지 >
