After doing 秋, I finally relieved the burden of 尹 … Choice of judges

Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol is on the morning of the 7th to work at the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul. [연합뉴스]

Representatives of judges from around the country debated the judge’s document prepared by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, but 80% of them objected and did not vote. In the legal community, it can be said that “progressive judges have not attacked Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol.”

The second half of the ordinary meeting of the representatives of the national judges was held at 10 am on the 7th through a video connection due to the spread of the new coronavirus infection (Cotorona 19). Of the 125 representatives of the judges, 120 attended, exceeding the attendance standard of the majority.

In addition to the existing notices, such as the improvement of the judicial officer appointment process and the agenda to improve the qualification of judges, the “agenda on the independence of judges and impartiality of the trial” was added to the site. Article 6, numeral 3 of the statutes of the Meeting of Representatives of National Judges allows the Representative of Judges to propose a new agenda if he obtains the consent of 9 members other than him on the day of the meeting. Jang Chang-guk, Chief Judge of the Jeju District Law, suggested that “the recent collection of information by the prosecution on information from judges and the political controversy that ensues as a result of this may infringe on the independence of the judges and the impartiality of the trial “. Agreed.

However, passing the resolution was not easy. The decision must be approved by a majority of the members present, or 60 or more. In favor of the prosecution, “it is inappropriate for the prosecution to collect information from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office as an investigative and information policy officer, and since it handles undisclosed data collected independently of the trial procedure, such as the ‘List of judicial judges’ I can . “The list of judges, the cause of water, is a document secured by the prosecution through seizure and search when investigating the allegations of abuse of the power of the judicial administration during the days of the former Chief of the Supreme Court, Yang Seung-tae. Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, who led the investigation at the time, was President Yoon.

On the other hand, the contrary position refuted: “The trial is ongoing in the Seoul Administrative Court, and as a matter with the possibility of continuing in the future, the statement at the level of the National Judges Delegation should be made with care to the independence of judgment “. Concerns have also been expressed that the resolution of the delegation of the judiciary could be used politically.

In the end, the original draft presented by Judge Chung was presented and three to four amendments were tabled, and the pros and cons were vigorously debated, but the resolution did not reach a quorum. A judge who attended the meeting said: “Only about 20% of those who agreed.” An official from the Judges Delegates explained: “The judges had a common sense of the problem that judges must fulfill their obligations of political neutrality, and that today’s debates and conclusions must be careful to be interpreted politically.”

The National Meeting of Judges, which is in charge of expressing opinions and making suggestions on the main issues of judicial independence and judicial administration, holds a regular meeting online for the second half of the 2020 National Meeting of Judges in the morning of the day 7. [뉴스1]

It seems that among the front-line judges the negative view of the agenda itself predominated. Ji Eun-hee (37, 41st Judicial Research and Training Institute), Suwon District Law Judge, posted an article on the court’s internal network, saying, “I am curious about the reason for pushing the agenda despite of the many dissenting opinions “. Judge Ji said: “If the opinion of the majority of the judges was against the proposal of the agenda, clarify what is the procedural basis of this process.” “Before discussing the external political forces, many misunderstandings and stigmas I am concerned that a heartbreaking situation will arise in which I will come in and coldly turn my back.”

A judge, who also opposed the approval of the agenda, said: “Why does the court intervene in the political struggle?” “There were many of these opinions when the representatives of the judges agreed.” Another sitting judge said: “There is a problem with the judicial delegation of judges who did not make a position for judges to run for politics. The deputy judge of the district court said that “the prosecution is not without problems with the creation of the judge’s documents”, but said that “it is also a reality that there are several concerns about the approval of the agenda.”

The burden on the disciplinary commission of the Prosecutor’s Office, which will be held on the 10th, has been reduced from President Yoon’s point of view, since the representatives of the judges did not deliver such a message in relation to the document of the grand indictment. On the 24th of last month, Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae raised the suspicion that a judge’s inspection was the reason for President Yoon’s major disciplinary claim. If a resolution prescribing the grand prosecution’s document were passed at that day’s meeting, the members of the disciplinary committee might have justification for demanding Yoon’s removal. For this reason, it seems on the surface that the judges did not express their opinions on the basis of political neutrality, but it is actually interpreted as Yun’s ‘trial victory’. A judge who attended the judge’s delegation said: “Some judges may not have raised a major issue with President Yoon’s sentencing document. The captain has gained strength, ”he said.

Reporters Lee Ga-young and Park Tae-in [email protected]