[ad_1]
“I would not say that I was a scammer, but I think it is unwise to deprive the attorney general of command and refute the prosecution with one of the stories of those who are in prison for long sentences for committing serious crimes, and those who are expected to be Sentenced to medium sentences. ”
On October 22, Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol announced that it was illegal for Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae to initiate the investigation and directly order in the state affairs audit of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of the Legislative Justice Committee of the National Assembly . The national audit, which began at 10 a.m. this day, ended after 1 a.m. the next day. During the 15-hour audit of the state administration, President Yoon and the ruling party lawmakers continued their war on whether or not the initiation of the investigative command was appropriate.
“Kim Bong-hyun’s voice is contradictory”
ㅋ Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol is answering questions from lawmakers at the state affairs audit of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office held at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul on October 22. News 1The appropriateness of the initiation of the investigation and the command authority by Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae has been at the forefront. In particular, the ‘Incarceration Letter’ written by former Star Mobility president Kim Bong-hyun, who is considered a key person in the Lime Asset Management (Lime) crisis, was mentioned as the basis for the invocation of power. Minister Chu’s investigative command, which instigated the controversy. Aware of the worsening of public opinion, Minister Chu also wrote on Facebook on October 21: “The great prosecutor who misled the public before blindly accusing the minister of ‘with a single letter from the opposition party and the media scammers activated the command of the attorney general ‘. You have to shoot first. ”Consequently, Economic Democracy 21 (CEO Kim Gyeong-yul) issued a ‘question for investigation and order like the Lime case’ to Minister Chu on the 22nd of the following day. The questionnaire contained seven questions in the questioning the appropriateness of conducting the Lime incident and involving the attorney general’s family and close friends. The essence of the investigation is “What is the basis for depriving President Yoon of command of the Ministry of Justice in relation to Lime’s investigation? “Economic Democracy 21 noted that” former President Kim’s testimony and his two prison statements contain contradictory details about whether there really was a lobby for former Blue House political director Kang Ki-jeong. ” At the trial of former Star Mobility CEO Lee Kang-se, who was charged with embezzlement on October 8, former President Kim said: “I knew that (former CEO executive) had been close to a person named Jung Moo-suk (Kang Ki-jeong). ” ) He said goodbye and left. I understood it to mean that the money and goods were delivered well. ”However, afterward, former President Kim was challenged in perjury, claiming that he made a false statement about passport personnel through the coercive investigation of the prosecution (former chief Kang Ki-jeong, etc.) As such, there is a high probability that at least one of them is false, as the trial testimony and the prison letter conflict.
Economic Democracy 21 expressed doubts about the credibility of the prison letter, saying: “Because the testimony in court came from a situation where people faced the penalty of perjury, the weight was different from the statement of the prison. ” If the credibility of an imprisonment letter is poor, the legitimacy of the investigation and the command authority based on it also suffer.
“Even if there is no fault of the president, will it be ruled out?” A strange statement
On October 22, the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office was held at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul. News 1General Yoon also pointed out the legitimacy of the invocation of the investigative command power by remarking in the State affairs audit of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, “Precisely, the Attorney General is not a subordinate of the Minister of Justice” and “I believe that the command of investigation is illegal and unfair. ” After that, there was an overreaction among the ruling party legislators, like, “Isn’t your subordinate or the Minister of Justice a friend?” However, it could not be revealed whether Yoon had an undue influence on the investigation process.
Faced with the upheaval of the grounds for the invocation of command, the ruling party argued that the invocation of the investigation command was justified even though there were no unfair actions. Furthermore, Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Jong-min said: “In the Lime case, there are some suspicions regarding the president (of the prosecutor). Regardless of the facts, whether they are responsible or not, if the president directs the case in a situation where they may be directly or indirectly suspicious, the public may not believe. So, from the point of view of the Minister of Justice, even if the President is not guilty, he can direct the investigation since the entire investigation can be challenged.
In response, Yoon said, “The command and supervision of the Minister of Justice is to intervene in the affairs of the prosecution in accordance with the law.” “If (the Minister of Justice) orders it, it is accepted, but the Law of the Prosecutor’s Office does not prescribe that the attorney general be omitted. Said. The Minister of Justice may lead the investigation himself, but not exclude the president.
The Ministry of Justice plans to inspect whether the prosecution, including General Yoon, has ever improperly conducted an investigation. During the audit, Minister Chu ordered the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office to jointly inspect the accusations of “ concealing the falsehood of prosecutors ” and “ political investigation bias ” in relation to the Lime incident. On October 22, Minister Chu said, “Attorney General Yoon and others insist they were unaware of the report prior to the media report” and “(Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Justice) and the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office were instructed to proceed jointly.” . However, there is room for a bias in the prosecution’s investigation in the future, since it is stated that “initiation of the command authority of the preliminary investigation, collection of subsequent evidence.”
“How is love like this?”
Along with the Lyme incident, there was no evidence that Yoon interfered with the investigation for the ‘allegations from close family and friends’, which was the subject of the investigation. Representative Kim Jin-ae of the Open Democratic Party said: “I don’t know much about love. How is love like this? “How far do you want to protect?” He raised a suspicion, “Isn’t it just to protect your wife or to protect your family?”
In response, General Yoon said: “I did not report any incidents involving my family, nor did I get involved. If I order the investigation, I should simply withdraw. ”“ If there is any data or evidence to say that I was involved in my wife’s affairs, or that my wife sells her husband to help me with work, please deal strictly. ” He said.
Economic Democracy 21 asked Minister Chu for an answer, asking: “What is the reason why it was judged that it was inevitable to deprive the President of Yun’s command in connection with the investigation of the case involving the President’s family and collaborators? close despite Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol’s evasion statement? ” No legislator intensively investigated the matter at the National Prosecutor’s Office on October 22. For this reason, the controversy over the legitimacy of the investigating and command authority is expected to continue even after the state administration ends.
Reporter Choi Jin-ryul [email protected]
[이 기사는 주간동아 1262호에 실렸습니다]
Copyright by dongA.com All rights reserved.
