[ad_1]
Ordinary meeting held in the second semester of this year on the 7th … 120 people attended
Proposal on site → The agenda was proposed with the consent of 9 people, but rejected ‘
Overwhelming ‘opposite’ opinion … “limit of political interpretation, common perception”
On the morning of the 7th, the National Meeting of Judges will hold a regular meeting for the second half of the 2020 National Meeting of Judges online. Provision of the Representative Meeting of National Judges
Representative judges from each court nationwide officially discussed the so-called ‘judge inspection documents’, which was the main reason for the disciplinary action of Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol, but in the end they did not express their official position. It was rejected because the majority of the judges present at the Meeting of the Delegation of National Judges did not agree. This conclusion of the judges is not a variable that directly affects the disciplinary committee of the Department of Justice prosecutor against Yoon on the 10th, but is expected to despite Yoon’s assertion that ‘Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae gave unreasonable reasons for disciplinary action. ‘
At 10 a.m. on the 7th, the 120 representative judges of the country’s first-line courts who attended the Meeting of the Delegation of National Judges carried out by online videoconference, thus decided after the proposal, debated and voted on the agenda. In addition to the eight existing agendas that have already been confirmed, a total of 10 or more judges, including the initiator (representative judge in Jeju), were adopted as a formal agenda in the process of asking whether or not a “ Document of suspicion of inspection by judges ” additional. . If a new agenda is proposed at the scene, an additional agenda will be sent if another nine judges agree. An official from the Delegation of Judges explained the reason for the assumption: “It was suggested that the collection of judicial information by the prosecution and the political controversy that took place as a result of this could undermine the independence and fairness of the judges.”
After the agenda was proposed, several opinions emerged and discussions took place on 3 and 4 amendments in addition to the original draft. The judges who voted in favor said: “The issue of collecting information from the judge (research information policy office) is inappropriate and undermines the independence of the judge in the sense that he has handled non-public data collected in different procedures to the trial, such as the drafting of the list of judges. I can do it.”
On the other hand, the opposite side clashed: “Since a related trial is ongoing at the Seoul Administrative Court and is a matter that will likely continue in the future, it is necessary to express opinions at the level of the National Council of Judges for Independence. of the judgment “. Furthermore, there was a considerable opinion that “the resolution of the delegation of national judges can be used politically”.
After fierce pros and cons, the representative judges voted on the original and the amendments, and as a result, the majority of the assistant judges did not approve all the proposals. In particular, it was reported that there were overwhelming opinions against the original draft. This is interpreted as a great concern that if an official statement is issued through a resolution in any direction, it will lead to a political interpretation and even the judiciary will be embroiled in the controversy. Apart from the conclusion, an official from the delegation of the judiciary said: “There was a common sense of problem: ‘The judges must fulfill their obligation of political neutrality and must be careful that today’s discussions and conclusions are interpreted politically.’ .
However, this conclusion of the National Judges Delegation is expected to have a significant impact on President Yoon’s disciplinary deliberation on the 10th. This is because the judges who are the parties to the indictment report, that Minister Chu stipulated as a “judges inspection”, they gathered their views on “will not raise an official problem.” Prior to the conduct of the disciplinary committee, it means that Minister Chu had missed an opportunity to get an “ outside friend, ” and on the contrary, President Yoon said that the burden was much lightened.
In addition, the Meeting of the National Delegation of Judges discussed △ improving the process of appointment of judges and △ improving the qualification of judges, but these agendas were also rejected. The bill on the urgency of expanding civil jurisdiction was only deliberate and approved.
No problem reporter [email protected]
Jooyoung yoon reporter [email protected]
Subscribe to the Hankook Ilbo News Naver channel
Balance to see the world, the Hankook Ilbo Copyright © Hankookilbo
[ad_2]
