[ad_1]
Entry 2020.12.25 00:08 | Revision 2020.12.25 00:11
Regarding the most controversial ‘judge suspicion’, the court said: “The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of the Office of Investigative Information Policy selects the main special and public security cases and organizes the origins, important trials and opinions of the judges of a specific judiciary in a document. “It is very inappropriate in terms of risk.” He also stressed that “these types of documents should not be drawn up in the future.”
However, “legal judgment” was reserved. The court said: “In order to finally determine whether the motive for the disciplinary action is recognized in this part, an additional hearing is deemed necessary on the main bill on the detailed method and background of the court analysis document.”
As a basis, △ It is necessary to examine how the data is being used to maintain public ownership is An additional hearing is required on the method of obtaining the data △ The purpose of the purpose is to defame and mock the Department of Justice only with the data of clarification presented so far by the defendant (Justice Minister Chu Miae) It was not enough to admit that he was inside, so an additional hearing was needed. △ It was not enough to admit that the document was repeatedly written with only the explanatory data, so it was said that an additional audience was needed.
In relation to the Channel A case, it was judged that the interference in the prosecution had been clarified first, but the part of the investigation was not clarified.
Regarding the interception of the indictment, the court said: “A sufficient additional hearing is required in the trial of the main case to determine whether the applicant ordered the inspection cease for the purpose of interfering with the prosecutor’s immediate inspection and investigation. Han Dong-hoon “.
However, the reason for the disciplinary action that interfered with the investigation was: “There is room for the vocation (of Minister Chu) to be insufficient.” Regarding the referral of the case to the Investigation Advisory Group, whether the referral requirements have been met, how the Chiefs of Swordsmen Meeting did not function properly, and the credibility of former reporter Lee Dong-jae’s statements cited in the disciplinary ruling , etc. He said he needed an additional audience.
◇ “Violation of political neutrality, only speculation”
For violations of political neutrality, he stated that “the reasons for the disciplinary action are not recognized.”
On October 22, at the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Yoon asked, “I am going to do politics after my term. They are voting for me as a presidential candidate.” I will slowly think about how I will serve our society and the people. “In response, Minister Chu saw political neutrality as a ground for disciplinary action and said,” Positive neutrality is suspect. “
The judiciary decided that it was difficult to conclude that Yun’s comments were “inappropriate words and actions.”
The judge said: “‘Service to our society and the people’ can be interpreted in various ways, such as volunteering through politics, free advocacy, acting as a general counsel, representing the individual interests of the people, volunteering through others. public offices and volunteerism in general. “It is difficult to conclude that the authenticity of the comments will be revealed according to the steps taken after (President Yoon) retired, so it is difficult to determine how inappropriate words and actions with regarding political neutrality ”.
Furthermore, he said, “It is difficult to say that the applicant is responsible for the judgment of the disciplinary committee that Yoon did not repeatedly request a ‘subscription’ in response to a public opinion poll conducted in June with President Yoon as a prominent candidate for the upcoming presidential election”.
Judges are just guesswork and grounds for acknowledging misconduct, such as “the ‘likelihood of political neutrality’ of the disciplinary committee and ‘the possibility of applicant’s political activity cannot be excluded from the possibility of political use in the investigation of important cases ‘It’s not appropriate to be.’
In particular, the judiciary stipulated the provisions of the Disciplinary Committee’s ‘Code of Ethics for Prosecutors’, Article 3 (1), Article 43 (2) of the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office, Article 2 (1) of the Law on Discipline of Prosecutors. It’s not based on that. “In short, it means that the judiciary has accepted 100% of Yoon’s claim that” they were punished with speculation without evidence. “
The court found that there was also a flaw in the disciplinary process of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Disciplinary Committee against President Yun. He accepted some of Yoon’s arguments, who questioned the illegality of the disciplinary procedure. In the final conclusion, the judge said: “It is difficult to conclude that there is no possibility of winning the main bill of the case adding that there is a flaw in the decision of the request for evasion of the disciplinary committee in the disciplinary disposition procedure.”
The part that the judiciary saw as a problem was whether the quorum for the rejection decision was met. President Yoon’s disciplinary committee consisted of five members, including Vice Minister of Justice Yong-gu Yong-gu, Han-joong Jeong (Acting President) of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, National Chonnam University Professor Ahn Jin, the Attorney General of the Department of Justice Shim Jae-cheol and the head of the Department of Anti-Corruption Power Shin Seong-sik. General Yoon’s lawyers filed a lawsuit against four of them, excluding Director Shin.
Article 17, paragraph 4 of the Law on Discipline of Prosecutors establishes: ‘When a challenge is requested, the commission decides whether to challenge it with the assistance of the majority of the registered members and the approval of the majority of the members present.’ . In this case, it stipulates that a person who has received a challenge request cannot participate in the resolution. It is indicated that the decision quorum to avoid resolution is the majority of the registered members.
Since President Yoon’s disciplinary committee has 7 members and the majority of the members are 4, a majority of 4 or more members must be present to avoid a resolution.
However, it was confirmed that the other three members of the disciplinary committee, who had been challenged by the disciplinary committee, should be removed. When General Yoon’s side presented a common ground of impeachment against Vice Minister Lee and Director Shim, the disciplinary committee dropped the two and then three disciplinary members voted against. The disciplinary committee decided on the common grounds for impeachment against Professor Chung and Vice Minister Lee, and after leaving the two men, the decision was made with only three members.
Furthermore, as Director Shim himself evaded the disciplinary committee before the individual decision to evade each disciplinary member, the rest of the disciplinary members took turns taking part in the decision against others, leaving only the decision against themselves. Again, it was decided not to do so with three members who did not reach a quorum.
The court said, “The decision to challenge the defense attorney on President Yoon’s side is invalid because it does not have a quorum of attendance of the majority of the registered members,” and said: “The disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee in this case is also the participation of members who have received a request for refusal to participate in the disciplinary resolution “. It was done next and it was not valid because it did not meet the quorum. “
Minister Chu’s defense team refuted that the members who were challenged should be included in the quorum attendance but excluded from the quorum attendance, but the court did not accept it. Minister Chu’s argument is about the interpretation of article 368 (4) of the old Commerce Law, which is not appropriate to apply in this case because the law of prosecution and discipline and the wording are different.
However, the court found that there was no problem with the appropriateness of the disciplinary procedures of the other prosecutor claimed by President Yoon. It was also considered legitimate to appoint Professor Jeong as a member of the disciplinary committee and act as chairman, or participate in the evasion decision before Principal Shim made the evasion. There was no problem with the disciplinary record and the undisclosed list of disciplinary committee members and the inspection process.
For more related articles,
- 文 “Apologize as a person entitled to human resources” 與 “expressing a responsible position” 野 “acquisition”
Reporter Son Deok-ho
- Nak-Yeon Lee “I am not lenient on the part of the President of the Republic of Korea” Jong-in Kim “Common sense judgment … 與, ignorance of the separation of powers”
Reporter Son Deok-ho
- President Wen, “respecting the court decision … apologizes for the resulting confusion”
Reporter Son Deok-ho
- Lee Nak-yeon, confused by Yoon Seok-yeol’s return, has an emergency meeting with members of the judiciary
Reporter Lee Kyung-tak
- Seok-yeol Yoon, go to work from the 25th … “Coronation and investigation authority adjustment” (general)
Reporter Lee Jong-hyun
- Justice Party, Yoon Seok-yeol’s decision to return to work “may have disagreements, but respect judgment”
Reporter Kim Myung-ji
- 與 “I deeply regret the court ruling … Continue to vigorously promote the reform of the prosecution service”
Reporter Kim Myung-ji
- 野 “The rule of law in Korea is not dead … Apologize to President Wen for re-enacting discipline” (General)
Reporter Kim Myung-ji
- 靑, “No position announcement today” on the return of President Yoon Suk-yeol (general)
Reporter Kim Myung-ji
- ‘Honesty’ released Yoon Seok-yeol, ‘Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant’, etc.
Reporter Miho Lee
- The court cites the suspension of disciplinary action by President Yoon Seok-yeol … After 尹 and Chu Mi-ae, President Wen also won (total)
Reporter Lee Jong-hyun
