[ad_1]
Yoon Seok-yeol’s second disciplinary deliberation appears to be harsh
Reporter Hansoo Kim hangang @
Check-in: 2020-12-13 19:19:31Review: 2020-12-13 19:23:02Published: 2020-12-13 19:23:11 (p. 4)
The Disciplinary Committee of the Prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice against Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol will be held again on the 15th. On the morning of the 11th, a wreath is erected in front of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, to support President Yoon. Yunhap news
Tomorrow the second deliberation of the Disciplinary Committee against Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol will take place.
In the first deliberation on the 10th, the process of selecting a disciplinary committee and adopting witnesses ended after a dispute, but the ‘off-scene conflict’ between President Yoon and the disciplinary committee over procedural legality continues. The disciplinary committee and President Yoon’s side also announced a fierce battle in the second deliberation that will take place on the 15th, and it will take a considerable amount of time to determine the final disciplinary level.
Composition of the disciplinary committee and the procedure for questioning witnesses
President Yoon’s side and the disciplinary committee disagree
The fierce warning of battle to be held on the 15th
The disciplinary committee of the Ministry of Justice and Yoon’s side did not even begin to discuss the reasons for the disciplinary action that was applied to him in the first deliberation, and only the selection of the disciplinary and the adoption of witnesses were completed. President Yoon’s side submitted a request to evade the four disciplinary members, including Disciplinary President Jeong Han-jung’s official representative, but the disciplinary committee dismissed it, raising the conflict between the two parties. The disciplinary committee adopted the seven witnesses requested by President Yoon as witnesses, showing a step backward, and the first deliberation was completed in seven hours.
On the 13th, President Yoon argued that “the composition of the disciplinary committee is illegal” and that the disciplinary committee’s own deliberation on the 10th was invalid. Lawyer Wan-gyu Lee, the legal representative from Yoon’s side, argued that the procedure was unfair, saying, “As Justice Minister Chu Miae missed the deliberation and became 6 out of 7 disciplinary committee members , it was necessary to appoint additional members to form 7 members “.
Regarding this, the official vice chairman of the disciplinary committee Jung Han-jung dismissed Yoon’s argument and said, “The appointment of a preliminary member is not mandatory and Minister Chu cannot attend the deliberation only, but he maintains the position of the disciplinary committee “.
Yoon’s side and the disciplinary committee are also in different positions in the witness questioning procedure. The gap around the opportunity to question eight Witnesses is not narrowing. On the 10th, the disciplinary committee adopted 7 witnesses requested by President Yoon and 8 others, including Shim Jae-cheol, the attorney general of the Ministry of Justice, who requested the disciplinary committee ex officio. Of the eight witnesses, four are expected to represent Yoon’s position: Prosecutor Ryu-hyuk, Prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice, Park Young-jin, Chief Prosecutor of the Ulsan District Prosecutor’s Office, Sohn Jun-seong, Attorney General and Prosecutor Lee Jeong-hwa.
On the other hand, four men, including the Supreme Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, Han Dong-soo, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, Jeong Jin-woong, the Gwangju District Prosecutor’s Office and the head of the Shim Office, they have filed complaints against him.
The disciplinary committee said in the first deliberation on the 10th that only disciplinary members could question witnesses. The disciplinary committee emphasized that “the questioning of witnesses is different from the questioning of witnesses in the criminal process” and emphasized that it is “the procedure for the committee to question and respond to witnesses.” However, if attorneys on President Yoon’s side presented follow-up questions, the disciplinary committee could ask questions instead. Yoon’s side protested, saying that refusing to give the right to question witnesses ignores basic principles of due process.
Meanwhile, on the 11th, President Yoon submitted an additional document to the Constitutional Court requesting the Constitutional Court to quickly decide whether to accept a request for provisional disposition for a constitutional complaint against the Fiscal Discipline Law. Yoon’s side hopes that the disciplinary committee could be suspended if the constitution cites a provisional injunction.
Reporter Hansoo Kim hangang @
