[ad_1]
The main basis for the request for disciplinary action by the practicing attorney general in history was the ‘Court Analysis Document’ prepared by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office. Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae defined this as an illegal inspection by a judge and requested disciplinary action by Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol and requested an investigation. However, on the 17th it was confirmed that the disciplinary commission of the Ministry of Justice reserved the judgment on the illegality of the document. Criticism has been raised about this, saying, “Are you not convinced that you cannot legally be a sinner?” With Yoon foreshadowing a lawsuit against disciplinary action, a battle over the document is expected to take place in court.
According to the summary of the disciplinary committee’s resolution released today, the disciplinary committee decided to suspend the disciplinary action with President Yoon for two months, and listened to him based on the preparation and distribution of the ‘court analysis document’. The disciplinary committee considered that this document was “written and distributed with the purpose and intention of using it to attack, defame or mock the court.” In February, the Office of Investigation and Information Policy of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office prepared a document containing the reviews of the main courts, including the family case of former Justice Minister Cho Kook. The disciplinary committee saw that Yun ordered the elaboration of the document, which violated the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the Law of the Prosecutor’s Office. However, the disciplinary committee said: “The point of interfering with the exercise of legal abuse rights is a matter of disagreement over the fact that Yoon instructed the senior prosecutors to write documents. It means that there is room for punishment, but will not judge whether it is a violation of current law. This is different from the attitude that Minister Chu showed earlier in insisting on an “illegal inspection of the judges.” Minister Chu emphasized the illegality, saying, “It is difficult to find a difference with the illegal inspection of intelligence agencies during the past authoritarian regime, “as the controversy over President Yoon’s request for disciplinary action continued on the 27th of last month. On the 25th of last month, he requested an investigation to the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, saying there was room for illegality. The case has been reassigned to the Seoul Superior Prosecutor’s Office. Some point out that “the disciplinary committee or admitted it was not illegal. ” “It has been pointed out several times that the crime is not true even inside, and it has been revealed that the disciplinary commissioners are legalists, so they have no choice but to admit it,” said a prosecutor from the Financial District Attorney’s Office. A lawyer said: “I avoided (the trial) with the expression ‘extraordinary’, but I saw that there was no suspicion to apply it.
Previously, there was a backlash from the Ministry of Justice that it was difficult to apply the charges against the judges. The Daejeon District Prosecutor’s Office Lee Jeong-hwa was sent to the Office of the Inspector General of the Ministry of Justice at that time to take over the related inspection tasks.
It revealed: “I wrote a report stating that abuse of authority charges cannot be applied, but it was removed from the final inspection record.” Just before the announcement of the disciplinary suit on 24 last month, Ryu-hyuk, an inspector from the Justice Ministry, said he requested a reconsideration from the minister for more than an hour, saying: “It is not a crime legally.”
In addition, the disciplinary committee cited △ the interruption of the Channel A case investigation, △ the interruption of the Channel A case investigation, and △ the damage to political neutrality as grounds for disciplinary action. The disciplinary committee criticized that “(President Yoon) reproduced the appearances of the bosses at the time, who impeded the investigation of the NIS comment,” for interfering with the inspection of the Channel A case. Also, referring to the undermining of neutrality politics, he said: “He made political neutrality less reliable by making a statement that does not deny the possibility of political activity in the Office of State Administration.”
Meanwhile, President Yoon is scheduled to file a request for stay of execution with the Seoul Administrative Court on the same day, asking the Seoul Administrative Court to cancel the disciplinary action and stop the disciplinary action. The subject of the request for stay of enforcement is not much different from the previous request for stay of enforcement of the labor exclusion. This is the reason why the court will most likely accept Yun’s argument. The variable is likely to be that President Moon Jae-in, who is the final personnel authority, directly approved of President Yoon’s discipline. However, there is also the possibility that the court’s decision on the request for stay of execution will have the same effect as the judgment on the main claim for annulment of the disciplinary provision, and the court may postpone the decision.
There are three main issues in the case of stay of execution. Each is △ whether it is difficult to recover, △ whether there is an urgent need, and △ whether it has a significant impact on public welfare. Procedural legitimacy is not taken into account in the disciplinary process and whether sufficient defense rights have been guaranteed. On day 1, the court raised President Yun’s hand on the three issues. First of all, regarding damages that are difficult to recover, the judge said that “(the exclusion of duty) is not only damage that cannot be compensated with money, but also tangible and intangible damage that cannot be borne as financial compensation “. Under the same logic, the honest disposition can also be judged as an irreparable loss. Other judgments can be made as to whether there is an urgent need. The judiciary accepted Mr. Yoon’s argument and explained that “the exclusionary provision has the same effect as the severe disciplinary provision such as dismissal and honesty.” This two-month provision differs from the previous dismissal from the position in which he left after completing the disciplinary process.
Whether it affects public welfare is an issue that the judge emphasized in the previous case that “if the attorney general obeys the command and supervision of the Minister of Justice, the independence of the prosecutor cannot be maintained.” However, the judge said, “The Attorney General is appointed by the President,” and said, “We have to look more strictly so as not to transfer to the Minister of Justice the personal rights of the Attorney General.” The sentence may vary depending on how significant the court accepts that President Moon, the person in charge of the staff, has awarded the punishment to President Yoon.
[정희영 기자 / 류영욱 기자][ⓒ 매일경제 & mk.co.kr, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]
