[ad_1]
[앵커]
The court accepted the request for a stay of execution, which Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol appealed the two-month disciplinary measure. President Yoon was able to return to work after his last suspension from work. President Yoon decided to go to the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office tomorrow and after Christmas, the Christmas season. Let’s listen in detail connecting journalists. Reporter Lim Seong-ho! Following the last suspension of duties, the court accepted Mr. Yun’s request to suspend the disciplinary execution. Yes, the Seoul Administrative Court said it was citing part of President Yoon Seok-yeol’s two-month suspension of execution. It was decided to suspend the effect of suspension for two months to 30 days from the date of the sentence of the disciplinary annulment action. As a result, President Yoon was able to return to work once more after his last suspension from work. It has been 8 days since the disciplinary committee of the Ministry of Justice decided on disciplinary action on the 16th and President Moon Jae-in stayed home. Immediately after the court decision, President Yoon said that he was deeply grateful for the judgment of the judiciary and said that he would do everything possible to uphold the spirit of the constitution, the rule of law, and common sense. President Yoon decided to go to Grand Fencing tomorrow and the day after the Christmas break to receive a report on his absence. On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice refused to say that the priority was to confirm the judicial decision. As with the earlier suspension of work suspension, he said it was necessary to review whether an immediate appeal was made. Can you explain why the court accepted the stay request? First, the court ruled that the inability to fulfill his duties as Attorney General Yoon for two months constitutes tangible and intangible damages that cannot be compensated with money. Because of this, I thought there was an urgent need to prevent this. However, unlike the previous suspension from office, the court drew a line that President Yoon’s disciplinary action cannot be seen to undermine the independence and neutrality of the prosecution. It is that prosecutors can perform their functions on behalf of the people as long as they are in a single government office. The Ministry of Justice argued that the revocation of the president’s punishment, which would cause instability in the administration and division of public opinion, would undermine the public welfare, but the court did not accept it. At this suspension hearing, the court examined the legality of the disciplinary procedure and the validity of the reasons. How was that part? Yes, as you said, the court examined the legality and validity of the disciplinary action in an unusual way during the suspension hearing. We issue different judgments for each case. In the first place, the court pointed out that there was a procedural flaw in the resolution process of the request for evasion of the disciplinary commission with respect to the procedure of the disciplinary commission. The decision on the rejection request was made by four members, the majority of the 7 registered members, and at that time, the disciplinary committee canceled the member who received the rejection request, and the remaining three participated in the resolution, which was minor. to the quorum. However, in addition to the list of disciplinarians not being disclosed in advance, and the controversy over the bias against the disciplinary, the complaints of illegality of the procedure raised by President Yoon drew a line that was not right. The sentence was different for each case on the four charges that were grounds for disciplinary action. First, the court ruled that the accusations of “violation of political neutrality” provoked by the statements of President Yoon by the national government could not be grounds for disciplinary action solely because of the demands and vocations of the Ministry of Justice. While he noted that the most controversial ‘judge’s analysis document’ was highly inappropriate, he saw that an additional vocation was needed, and the charges of interfering in the investigation and inspection of the Channel A case were deemed controversial. Detailed judgment on many of the issues of disciplinary validity was left to the main case. However, in any case, as the court decision forced Yoon to return to work, the Ministry of Justice faced criticism for pushing for unreasonable discipline and a subsequent severe storm. Furthermore, President Moon Jae-in, who passed again, could not escape the responsibility theory. I am YTN Seong-ho Lim from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office. ※ ‘Your report becomes news’ YTN awaits your valuable report.
[카카오톡] Search YTN to add a channel [전화] 02-398-8585 [메일] [email protected] [온라인 제보] www.ytn.co.kr
