[단독]A statement from the three 檢 members, “The leader of the private organization, if the president becomes a dictatorship,”

Jeong Han-jung, the head of the District Attorney’s Discipline Committee (Professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, School of Law), leaves the government building after the second deliberation of the District Attorney’s Disciplinary Committee against Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol at the Gwacheon Government Complex in the early morning of the 16th, answering questions from reporters. [뉴스1]

On the 16th, the Disciplinary Committee of Prosecutors of the Ministry of Justice recognized four counts of disciplinary action from Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol and imposed a two-month suspension. There are four charges admitted by the disciplinary committee: ① drafting and distributing suspicious documents for court inspections ② interfering with inspections related to the Channel A case ③ interfering with the investigation of the Channel A case ④ damaging political neutrality.

Two of the four disciplinary charges that the disciplinary committee admitted during a 7-hour discussion from 9 p.m. the previous day to 4 a.m. the day were related to the alleged attempt at coercion by a former Channel reporter A. This is a case that addressed the suspicion that a former Channel A reporter was forced to cooperate with former Value Invest Korea representative Lee Chul, who is in prison after meeting with prosecutor Han Dong-hoon.

The Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, Criminal Division 1, seized and searched Channel A’s headquarters in April and conducted a forced investigation, but there was no clear evidence to prove the relationship. In controversy over whether the investigation continues even within the Great Swordsman, President Yoon Seok-yeol called a professional investigation advisory group ex officio in June. However, the convocation of the advisory group was canceled under investigation by Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae.

The Prosecutor’s Office and the Disciplinary Commission of the Ministry of Justice held a second deliberation on Yoon’s disciplinary status and the level of disciplinary action from 10:34 am on the 15th to 4 am on the 16th after midnight. Decided. The disciplinary committee admitted that four of the grounds for disciplinary complaints, such as “drafting and distributing documents reviewed by the judiciary in the most important cases”, were grounds for disciplinary action.[뉴스1]

At the disciplinary committee held on the 15th, three high-ranking prosecutors, who were key personnel from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office and the Central District Prosecutor’s Office, submitted affidavits related to the Channel A investigation. The three were Shim Jae-cheol, the chief prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice (at the time, the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office), Lee Jung-hyun, the head of the public criminal investigation department, the grand prosecutor’s office (at that time, the first deputy chief of the central district attorney’s office), and Kim Kwan-jeong, the eastern district attorney’s office, the main prosecutor’s office. The affidavit was also given to President Yoon’s special counsel.

The affidavit included a statement that “(at the time the advisory group met in June), except for the chief of the great swordsman, he appointed experts headed by the head of the department and the investigator.” A high-ranking prosecutor also stated: “At first, the managers insisted that the ‘Channel A case was not suspicious,’ and then gradually they were given related data, and their opinions gradually changed.”

At that time, it was also a time when the investigation team of the central district attorneys and the chief swordsman command addressed a request for a warrant. Prosecutor Park Young-jin, the head of the Ulsan District Prosecutor’s Office, who was confronted with the investigation team while serving as the Chief Detective of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, was questioned as a witness for Yoon’s side in the disciplinary committee. The prosecutor’s statement also included the statement that “Suk-yeol Yoon is a suitable person for the head of a private organization, and if he becomes president, he will become a dictatorship of the prosecution.”

Regarding this, Mr. Yoon’s defense attorney asked, “Does it make sense to put Channel A’s case as two of the four disciplinary charges without giving him the opportunity to refute the allegations in the statement?” They advocated procedural injustice, claiming that the lawyer had the right to question and charge the evidence in criminal proceedings. At 7:30 pm the day before, the defense attorney on the president’s side was asked to file a rebuttal to Director Shim Jae-cheol’s statement within an hour, and after protesting fiercely, he left.

Regarding the section in which the prosecution said: “When the prosecution gave me the data, the opinion of the chief swordsman changed.” It became clear. “Regarding the statements of the” dictatorship “, he refuted saying:” When did the president want to become president? “,” I saw the president politically first. “He said:” If the positions of President Yoon are admitted in the case of Channel A, it is appropriate to dismiss and investigate. ”

Reporters Minsang Kim and Kwangwoo Kang [email protected]