[ad_1]
Jeong Han-jung, who serves as chairman of the Prosecutor’s Discipline Committee of the Ministry of Justice (center), returns home after completing the disciplinary committee of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol held at the Ministry of Justice building on the 10th. . [뉴스1]
The Prosecutor’s Disciplinary Committee (Disciplinary Committee) against Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol will be held again on the 15th day following the day before. The first disciplinary committee, which lasted 9 hours and 30 minutes, was unable to reach a conclusion, and the second disciplinary committee is expected to cover the scope and scope of discipline against President Yun. Given the five days of time, some analysts in the legal profession argue that both parties have gained different advantages.
Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol’s disciplinary committee continues on the 15th
Yoon’s side to buy record review time
The Disciplinary Committee prepares the reasons for the justification of the procedure
All witnesses must be adopted and questioned.
Conflict for more than 2000 pages of record reading
Corner line “The chair is the player”
On the 15th, the disciplinary commission will conduct an interrogation of the 7 witnesses requested by General Yoon and the attorney general of the Ministry of Justice Shim Jae-cheol, who has been adopted ex officio. This will be followed by a final statement of opinion from the special counsel by Chairman Yoon and the discussion and resolution process of the disciplinary committee.
The disciplinary committee was able to continue the deliberation on the 11th, the following day. However, President Yoon refuted that it was necessary to read and review the records. First, the disciplinary committee said that the record was not disclosed to General Yoon, but was only allowed to view it on the afternoon of the day before the first deliberation, and that it was only available during the deliberation. Consequently, on the 10th, in the disciplinary committee on the 10th, General Yoon argued that “there is no sense in guaranteeing the right to defense because it is impossible to prepare for a defense such as review and confirmation of related data.”
General Yoon’s side proceeds to read the logs from 11 to 15, when the next disciplinary committee is held. There are a lot of records that have not been released as of yet, and time is limited, making it a position to review intensively. Attorney Wan-kyu Lee, a special counsel, said, “From this day on, I will continue to read the records.” After reviewing the records, President Yoon plans to highlight the unfairness of the disciplinary action requested by Justice Minister Chu Miae and the illegality of the procedure.
It is evaluated that it is positive that all the requested witnesses are adopted and that the questioning takes place. General Yoon’s side requested prosecutor Lee Jung-hwa as witnesses, followed by six people, including prosecutor Ryu-hyuk, former chief prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office Park Young-jin, former chief prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, Sohn Jun-seong, the Attorney General, Seoul Central District Attorney General Lee Seong-yoon, Jeong-woong District Attorney General, and Han Gongang-soong. Adopted. However, unlike court witnesses, the disciplinary committee cannot compel witnesses to appear. In this regard, President Yoon stressed that “if you are proud, there is no reason not to come (to the disciplinary committee).”
Even as a disciplinary committee, the continuation of the term granted President Yoon sufficient rights of defense, and there was a basis for ensuring the legitimacy and fairness of the proceedings. In the future, even if the conclusion of a severe disciplinary action against President Yoon were concluded, it could be argued that it was not a “push” process. In addition, there is an analysis that there is also time to consider the content of President Yoon’s initial deliberation.
Legitimacy and procedural fairness are also areas that President Moon Jae-in emphasized. In this regard, the disciplinary committee unusually published the disciplinary procedure process in the form of a ‘notice’ the day before. The president’s agency, Han-jung Jeong, a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies School of Law, said: “We will ensure that the procedure is well guaranteed so that there are no obstacles to the right to defend.”
However, controversy still exists over a number of issues, such as the issue of notification of the deadline to the Minister of Justice, which has arisen since the first deliberation, and the decision of the disciplinary committee of director Shim Jae-cheol, who led the disciplinary process and the adoption of witnesses. It is pointed out to Director Shim who led the report on the documentary and the request for discipline and investigation, which is one of the reasons for Yoon’s disciplinary complaint. It is also envisaged that if the cross-examination of the witness takes place, it may be a second “ report ” of the disciplinary complaint. In the end, some analysts in the legal profession say that continuing with the deadline was a beneficial decision for both President Yoon and the disciplinary committee. It is the purpose of the fact that Yun had time to rearrange the claims after reviewing the records, and the disciplinary committee had the justification to proceed fairly.
On the other hand, attention is also drawn to Han-jung Jeong, chairman of the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Faculty of Law, serving as disciplinary chairman. Acting Chung is reported to have included the issue of “impairing political neutrality” among the six reasons for taking disciplinary action against President Yoon, Minister Chu stated. Acting Chung asked President Yoon, quoting Ho-Young Joo’s National Power words, “We should declare ‘I will not be a politician.’ “Why isn’t the president asking the public opinion polling agency to remove his name?” “Why don’t you say you don’t do politics?” This question is said to have arisen during a discussion about the ‘judge’s document’ that the Ministry of Justice raised an issue in requesting discipline from President Yoon. In response, President Yoon refuted that “I requested it several times, but the polls did not remove the name,” “The president did not say he was a politician,” “President Yoon maintained political neutrality.
According to acting Chung representatives, Professor Chung even said, “Is the president who lost political neutrality not qualified as president?” Yoon’s position is that it is difficult to accept Chung’s ‘prejudices’. It is that there is no guarantee of the impartiality of the president who is prejudiced against President Yoon.
There is also controversy over Acting Chung’s emphasis on pushing for a quick battle while the deadline for the disciplinary committee to continue is being decided. He told reporters that he will “deliberate quickly” after the policy committee’s resolution was decided at 8 pm on the 10th. Consequently, some criticized him for inadequately emphasizing the speed in the first disciplinary proceedings for the attorney general.
Acting Jung said that he recommended that he read the disciplinary file over 2,000 pages on the day of the disciplinary committee on the 10th. General Yoon’s side requested that the disciplinary file be read by setting a separate date after the 10th, but did not accept it. Some pointed out that “the ‘president’, who should be in charge of the ‘judge’, is playing as a player.” “Based on the evidence, based on the facts, we will issue a judgment in consideration of the importance of the position of attorney general, which guarantees a term of two years,” he refuted.
Reporters Na Unchae, Jung Yujin, and Park Tae-in [email protected]
[ad_2]
