[ad_1]
The Chief Swordsman and the Great Sword Chiefs Reconfirm
“No intention was found that the inmate was harmed by perjury.”
Inmates are not prosecuted and prosecutors on the investigation team are also exempt from charges.
On the evening of the 19th, the evening of the 19th, when the Meeting of the Supreme Sword Chief and the Chiefs of the National Great Sword was held, the light is on in the Daeseon Office office in Seocho-gu , Seoul. Newsis
At the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office meeting held on the 19th to re-deliberate the suspicion of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook and the national superior prosecutor’s office, it is largely due to not enough. In particular, the defining moment was that there was little additional evidence to prove this, aside from revelation from other inmates about the falsity of ‘Mr. Kim Mo’s inmate testimony’, which Justice Minister Park Beom-gye ordered “conduct an intensive examination” in the exercise of investigative authority. It is known that of the 14 attendees, a whopping 10 people believed “no prosecution.”
At the ‘Marathon Meeting’ held for 13 hours and 30 minutes from 10 am to 11:30 am that day, Nam-gwan Cho, acting as interim prosecutor, and 7 chief prosecutors from across the country, and 6 chief prosecutors from en the whole country, he said, the prosecution must be prosecuted, ”Im Eun-jeong, prosecution policy researcher, focused on examining the validity of the opinion. This is because, on the 17th, Minister Park invoked the command authority on the 17th, asking them to verify whether the content of the inmate Mr. Kim’s testimony was false, whether they were suspected of perjury, and whether the purpose or not. damage was recognized. In 2010-2011, when the late Han Man-ho, the late Han Man-ho donor, overturned the statement in the case of Prime Minister Han Myung-sook’s “ illegal political funding of 900 million won, ” he said the investigation team of the prosecution to the inmate’s colleagues like Kim, the essence of this suspicion is that he asked him to testify that he once said that he gave money to the former prime minister.
Most of the morning time was spent familiarizing attendees with the general content of the case by reviewing related records. The full-blown meeting started in the afternoon. First, prosecutor Lim Eun-jung, who was brought to the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Policy Investigation in September last year, attended the meeting and expressed his opinion, saying, “After a formal investigation, we must prosecute the prisoner. Kim, the one guilty of perjury. ” Prosecutor Lim saw the testimony that Mr. Kim witnessed in court on February 21 and March 23, 2011 and said: “From what former CEO Han Man-ho used to say, (revocation of statements) is perjury. ” It relied on the fact that Han Mo and Choi Mo, co-workers of the inmates who made similar statements, revealed that “Mr. Kim’s testimony was made by the prosecution.”
It is also known that the prosecutor Lim published a draft of the complaint that he had prepared. Prosecutors from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office Han Dong-soo (opinion) and Chief Prosecutor Heo Jeong-soo, who was appointed by Acting General Cho as Chief Prosecutor, also attended and provided additional explanations.
The chief swordsman and the main swordsman began to seriously deliberate. First, through a legal review, we analyze whether the “single injury perjury” charges could apply to Mr. Kim. This is based on the possibility of proving that it is a ‘statement against memory’, which is a prerequisite for the crime of perjury.
However, it was reported that the majority of the participants sought opinions on the fact that “there is only one situation where Kim gave a testimony similar to his memory.” Indeed, unlike other inmates who argued that “the prosecution taught perjury,” Mr. Kim was found to have consistently asserted that “there was no teacher of perjury” from the beginning. In addition, to prosecute Kim for perjury, there had to be “evidence to the contrary” to overturn the claim that “there was no master perjury of the prosecution,” but prosecutor Lim and others are known not to present it. This is the decisive reason for the judgment of 10 participants that it is not easy to prove perjury charges.
For this reason, the results of the meeting by majority vote had to be taken from the side that “it is more difficult to prove the alleged perjury.” Condemned perjury is ‘perjury to inflict harm on others’, and since even perjury, which is a means of injurious harm, is not proven, prosecution against Kim is virtually impossible. An executive from the Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office said: “In the context of only the ‘claims’ of the inmates, in the first place, to prove a master’s suspicion of perjury and perjury, additional evidence had to be captured. the jurisprudence was inflated as if it could only be prosecuted in various circumstances for the misleading charges of perjury. “
No problem reporter [email protected]
Subscribe to the Hankook Ilbo News Naver channel
Balance to see the world, the Hankook Ilbo Copyright © Hankookilbo
[ad_2]
