[단독] The disciplinary committee said: “The questioning of witnesses is not allowed.”

The disciplinary committee of the Ministry of Justice blocked Yoon Suk-yeol’s right to directly question witnesses in the second deliberation of the disciplinary committee against Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol, and listened to him based on the current legal text. However, on the 13th it was confirmed that the Ministry of Legal Affairs, which oversees the government’s legal interpretation, gave an interpretation that Yoon could directly inquire about witnesses. With President Moon Jae-in emphasizing the procedural legitimacy of the disciplinary committee above, it is noteworthy whether the disciplinary committee will pass another judgment on the questioning of the witness.

---

Discipline Committee “If necessary, the discipline committee will accept questions from attorneys.”

---

The day before, during the second deliberation of the disciplinary committee, General Yoon criticized that the disciplinary committee prevented direct questioning of witnesses, saying: “Not giving the right to question does not know the fundamentals of the principle of due process.” At the second deliberation scheduled for the 15th, eight witnesses from the Ministry of Justice and Prosecutors, including Prosecutor Ryu Hyuk from the Ministry of Justice and the Daejeon District Prosecutor’s Office, Lee Jeong-hwa, will be present and testify in relation to the alleged President Yoon’s disciplinary complaint. In the first deliberation on the 10th, there will be a full-scale discussion to determine whether Yoon and the disciplinary committee will spend most of their time discussing the procedure and level of discipline, and in the second deliberation testimony will be issued.

Meanwhile, the disciplinary committee blocked the opportunity for President Yoon to question witnesses. There are also criticisms that he intends to block testimony beforehand that will refute President Yoon’s disciplinary action charges. Prosecutor Ryu sanctioned General Yoon and was excluded from the discussion, and the prosecutor revealed that “I published a report saying that he is not guilty of the distribution of the ‘court analysis documents’ by President Yoon, but it was removed. “. The disciplinary committee said, “If necessary, we will accept requests for follow-up questions from Mr. Yun by Mr. Yun as much as possible.”

---

Interpretation as the difference between ‘interrogation and periodic’ according to disciplinary committee law … ‘interrogation’ is not a question

---

The disciplinary committee listened to the current ‘Prosecutor’s Disciplinary Law’ as a basis for not giving Mr. Yun a chance to question. The disciplinary committee said: “Under the Prosecutor’s Disciplinary Law, the committee can ‘intervene’ by adopting witnesses, and it is clear in the interpretation that the interrogation is a procedure that only asks and answers the committee, unlike the newspapers of He added: “It can be understood in the light of a ‘interrogation’ procedure before redemption.”

Typically, newspapers are questions and answers about defendants and witnesses that take place in court. Lawyers, like defendants, can ask questions and find out the reality through them. On the other hand, interrogation is a procedure in which a judge, etc., ex officio interrogates a witness, etc. before concluding a sentence, etc., and there is no basis for questioning the accused or the lawyer of the subject of the disciplinary action. In “interrogation of suspects prior to confinement”, known as substantive examination of an arrest warrant, the warrant judge decides whether to issue a warrant after conducting a “cross-examination” with the accused. Article 13 of the current prosecution and discipline law stipulates that “the committee may question witnesses at the request of a disciplinary suspect or a special public defender.” On the other hand, article 16 of the Judge’s Disciplinary Law stipulates that “a witness may be questioned at the request of a disciplinary defendant, a defendant, a lawyer or a special lawyer.” Based on this, the disciplinary committee saw that Yun had no right to question.

---

The legal information of the Ministry of Legislation weighs on the arguments of the Korean side … “If the right to question is not granted, the breach is ignored”

---

However, President Yoon argued that the term “interrogation” used in the Prosecutors’ Discipline Act was actually the same as that of a newspaper. “In Japan, after the war, the term newspaper was abolished and changed to interrogation, which has no mandatory meaning.” He refuted.

The judgment of the royal legal authorities also supported Yoon’s argument. It follows from the English statutes published in the National Center for Legal Information operated by the Ministry of Legislation. The English statute of the Prosecutor’s Discipline Act expresses article 13 as “the committee may question a witness”. This is the same as the statutory expressions in English (question witnesses) of the judicial disciplinary law using the expression ‘newspaper’. Both laws ensured the right of the defendant’s lawyer to question. This is the same as the examining witness under the English law of the Criminal Procedure Act. On the other hand, the interrogation prior to the arrest warrant exemplified by the disciplinary committee was clearly written as an interrogation as a Witness interrogation in English law.

---

Former and current judge “Unreasonable interpretation of the disciplinary committee”

---

The former and current judges also voiced their voice that the disciplinary committee’s interpretation was arbitrary. A former deputy superior judge said, “Considering that the legal purpose of the Judge Disciplinary Law and the Prosecutor’s Disciplinary Law is less than the same, it is not reasonable to block direct investigations of President Yun.” A superior judge of a higher court said: “Although the disciplinary committee accepted the lawyer’s request for witnesses, it would be necessary to limit the right to question.”

On the other hand, on the same day, President Yoon insisted, “The deliberation of the disciplinary committee in the past 10 days is illegal and invalid, so it is necessary to reorganize the committee before proceeding.” Under current law, the committee must have 7 members, but the first deliberation held on the 10th was held with 4 members. Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae was excluded as a disciplinary plaintiff and a civil commissioner was absent. Sim Jae-cheol, Attorney General at the Ministry of Justice, requested evasion and was excluded.

According to the Law on the Discipline of the Prosecutor, it stipulates that the “committee consists of 7 members, including 1 president, and has 3 reserve members.” General Yoon said, “Because Minister Chu could not be a member of the committee due to the dismissal reason, the number of members became 6, so it should have consisted of 7 members filling a reserve member.” He also said: “On the 15th, we will appoint a preliminary member for the composition of the committee and we will request that 7 people be notified of the call.”

[류영욱 기자][ⓒ 매일경제 & mk.co.kr, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]