[ad_1]
Entry 2020.12.17 11:49 | Revision 2020.12.17 11:57
Recognition of ‘Judge Analysis Document’ instead of ‘Illegal Judge Inspection’
“It is not Yoon Seok-yeol who was investigating the NIS comment.”
The summary of the impeachment and discipline committee’s decision of “ two months of honesty ” was revealed to the attorney general. The disciplinary committee said that it is possible to dismiss a dismissal only for the four offenses recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, but since it is an unprecedented disciplinary action against the attorney general, it has decided to suspend it in consideration of special circumstances.
On the 17th, Representative Kang-wook Choi (Open Democratic Party) of the Legislative Judicial Committee of the National Assembly posted the summary of the disciplinary committee’s decision against Yoon via Facebook. In the essence of the decision, the reason for the disciplinary order of two months of suspension is given.
The disciplinary committee used the expression “ a document of the sentencing sentence ” instead of the “ illegal inspection of a judge ” used by Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae in the summary of the decision. He admitted that it was not an illegal method. However, the act of collecting public information alone was considered a problem and recognized as a reason for disciplinary action.
Most of Minister Chu’s claims were accepted on charges of interfering with the investigation and investigation of the Channel A case. The disciplinary committee said, “The attitude Yoon showed when he faced the Channel A case was the exact opposite of which was just a few years ago, and it seems to be a reproduction of the appearance of the bosses at the time, who prevented the NIS investigation from commenting. ” He noted that as this was a case related to the closest closure of the company, he had a legal obligation to avoid it himself.
Regarding the convening of a specialized investigation advisory group in relation to the ‘case of Channel A’, he said: “The point that I insisted on convening a specialized investigation advisory group against the Meeting of the Vice President of the Great Sword. The advisory group also tried to be made up of members selected directly by Chairman Yoon. It was recognized as grounds for disciplinary action in consideration of the fact that it was accepted as meaning of the conclusion of the investigation. The summary of the decision on the investigation and Obstruction of the Channel A investigation repeats the main charges for disciplinary claims announced by Minister Chu on last month 24. General Yoon’s rebuttal was barely accepted.
The disciplinary committee also noted that “if it was General Yoon who was investigating the NIS comment, something that would never have been done was in progress.” The current president Yoon is said to have become a different person from Yoon Seok-yeol 7 years ago.
As a prosecutor, he also admitted charges of undermining the prestige of political neutrality. The disciplinary committee said, “By making a statement that does not deny the possibility of political activity in the Office of State Administration, it has made President Yoon’s political neutrality no longer reliable,” and said, “He has gone further. of the duty of a prosecutor, which should not be exceeded in any case “.
The disciplinary committee said: “The fact of President Yoon’s misconduct is a Sino-Korean case that corresponds to the dismissal of more than one suspension according to the disciplinary guidelines, and the dismissal is possible in a comprehensive manner.” However, he explained that it was an unprecedented case as a disciplinary action against the attorney general, so many special circumstances were considered.
The following is the full text of the disciplinary committee’s decision.
[검사징계위 결정문 요지]Reasons for disciplinary action■ Aspects of recognized disciplinary reasons
-① The reasons for the disciplinary action for the preparation and distribution of documents analyzed by the judiciary in important cases are based on the will of the prosecution, directed to the judiciary of important political cases dealt with or of interest by the suspect disciplinary by using the prosecution’s investigative information gathering function while serving as attorney general. Collecting personal information from judges who have a high possibility of being abused to create an attack, slander or mockery by forming a public opinion landscape that is unfavorable to the judges who pass judgment against them and spreading an unfavorable image based on judgments or past actions of the judge. Distributed, this behavior is very good, undermining judges who have to face criticism from public opinion on a daily basis and, consequently, fear that the entire judicial community is unhealthy and requires more courage to make a good decision. The fact that the collection and distribution of personal information on the political and ideological disposition of judges in any context was not something that the attorney general who oversees the affairs of the prosecution,
-② The reason for interfering with the prosecution in relation to the Canal A case is that the attitude of the disciplinary defendant in the Canal A case is contrary to what it was only a few years ago, and the appearance of the supervisors at the time of the disciplinary defendant which prevented investigation of the comments by the NIS. It appears to have been reproduced, before the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office barely revealed that the incumbent prosecutor who is related to ○○○ in the Channel A case was ○○○, the disciplinary suspect may have known that ○○ ○ was involved in this case. And, even if he didn’t know that fact, at least immediately after MBC was reported, he would have known that ○○○ was mentioned in the media as a prosecutor related to ○○○. “If I get involved, they will suspect the impartiality of the investigation. Just inform me of the results, investigate with confidence and clarify clearly. If you do it well, you can show that the prosecution is standing firm. Since this was a related case, of course, there was a legal obligation to avoid it. However, the alleged disciplinary action stopped the accusation, allowing for a swift seizure and search, and ordered the Ministry of Human Rights to receive evidence with the cooperation of the media. What was done, the fact that public and junior prosecutors had to evaluate the choice of a cooperation request method rather than seizure and search in a case involving the practicing prosecutor,
-③ Furthermore, the reason for the obstruction of the investigation related to the Channel A case was the case that the disciplinary suspect, of course, should avoid himself as a case related to the closest proximity and the command delegated to the Supreme Swordsmen Meeting, and the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office also oppose the investigation team. The fact that they insisted on the convocation of the advisory group of the investigation was that the advisory group also pretended to be composed of members directly selected by the disciplinary accused, and that the referral to the advisory group was accepted as signifying the conclusion of the investigation in that moment, and the prosecutor who was a member of the investigative team does not make sense no matter how much he thinks about it. The fact that if he were a disciplinary suspect who was investigating the NIS comment, something he never would have done,
-④ It is entirely up to the disciplinary suspects to decide whether or not the disciplinary suspect will participate in political activities after his retirement, however, while performing the duties of attorney general, the actions of the disciplinary suspects were repeatedly accepted as political. The point that made the political neutrality of the disciplinary defendant cease to be credible by making a statement that did not deny that the disciplinary defendant was to give political color to the investigation carried out by the disciplinary defendant, and as a result, many prosecutors in charge of the investigation raised the same suspicion. Considering that it was an act of dismissal, and that the suspected disciplinary action was deemed to have gone beyond the duty of the prosecutor, which should not be overcome in any case.
■ The specificity of the disciplinary action against the Attorney General
-The misconduct of the disciplinary accused can be fully dismissed as a serious case that corresponds to the dismissal of more than the suspension according to the disciplinary guidelines, but this case is an unprecedented case as a disciplinary action against the Attorney General, and in this sense, there are many special circumstances. Considered
