Witness of Yoon Seok-yeol’s disciplinary committee ‘4: 4’ … Interrogation process appears to be fierce

The second deliberation on the 15th … 8 people, including Sim Jae-cheol, Attorney General, Lee Jeong-hwaPresident Jeong Han-jung “was prompted to question President Yoon’s direct witnesses”President Yoon’s side, continually raising procedural flaws such as the composition of the disciplinary committee

The Prosecutor and the Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of Justice will hold a second deliberation on the 15th and will discuss the level of disciplinary action of Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol. It is anticipated that a fierce battle will be fought over the adequacy of the inspection and disciplinary procedures and the facts of disciplinary charges through the questioning of witnesses.

On the 14th, President Yoon finished reviewing the disciplinary file and prepared for the questioning of witnesses. Among the reasons for the disciplinary action, eight were selected as witnesses related to the ‘Illegal Inspection of Judges’,’ Interrupt the inspection and investigation of the case of suspected prosecutor / eunctions’ and ‘Interrupt the inspection of the case of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook ‘. In the first deli He was adopted as a witness and Sim Jae-cheol, head of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Justice, was also adopted ex officio. Director Han, District Attorney Lee, Deputy Director General Jeong and Director Shim are expected to enforce the position of Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae, while Inspector General Ryu, the son in charge, is expected to , Prosecutor Lee and Director Park strengthen the position of President Yoon.

Han-joong Jeong, chairman of the disciplinary committee, said, “We will follow a plan that allows President Yoon to ask questions directly of witnesses.” Initially, the disciplinary committee was in a position that it would limit President Yun’s questions, saying, “The questioning of witnesses under the Prosecutors’ Disciplinary Law is a procedure in which the committee asks and answers witnesses.” It is interpreted with the intention of alleviating the controversy over procedural fairness. General Yoon’s part is expected to focus on the allegation that the inspection procedure for the alleged “judicial inspection” has not been properly followed.

As a result of the reading of the disciplinary file last weekend, President Yoon announced that there was no opinion that “no crime is established” in the report of the prosecutor Lee Jeong-hwa, who was in charge of the judicial review. of the “Analysis of important cases”. The Ministry of Justice said, “There is no fact that some of the reports have been erased by anyone”, but this prosecutor attended the Inspection Committee of the Ministry of Justice on day 1 and insisted that “Inspection Officer Park Eun- Jung ordered the opinion removed. “

There is no provision in the Disciplinary Law of the Prosecutor that requires the attendance of witnesses, so the eight witnesses may not be present. Inspector Ryu, Sohn and Park are expected to attend as much as they did at the first deliberation. It is very likely that the Prosecutor and Director Shim, adopted ex officio by the disciplinary committee, will also attend. It is unclear if Director Han, Chief Prosecutor Lee, and Deputy Chief Jeong will be present. There is the possibility that a third hearing will be scheduled depending on whether witnesses are present or the time of questioning.

The second deliberation of the disciplinary committee is expected to be conducted by four members. Because disciplinary action is voted on with a majority vote, at least three people must agree. There are seven disciplinary members in total, but Minister Chu, the president, was removed as a party to request disciplinary action, and Director Shim avoided it during the first deliberation. An external member of the committee did not attend. Another external member resigned before the disciplinary committee. Minister Chu appointed Professor Jeong Han-jung to the position of a member of the resigned committee and appointed him chairman.

Yoon’s side submitted an opinion to the Ministry of Justice, stating that Minister Chu commissioned Professor Chung after the disciplinary complaint, saying, “Since the minister appears to have added a new person to reflect his intention in the disciplinary deliberation and the resolution of the president, there is a risk of damaging equity. ” . President Yoon’s side also issued an opinion statement that the disciplinary committee should consist of 7 members by appointing a preliminary committee member to an empty seat and request for information disclosure, such as whether or not a member of the preliminary committee and the date of the nomination. The Ministry of Justice notified President Yun that a copy of the additional disciplinary records would be provided to him and that the minutes of the inspection committee could be consulted. President Yoon refused to receive and read the records, saying, “It is impossible to review realistically due to the preparation for the deliberation date.”