[ad_1]
There is growing opposition inside and outside the prosecution service to the order that Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae ordered to review a bill that punishes suspects who refuse to send passwords for mobile phones. The legal community has criticized that such a bill could violate the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution.
● “Unconstitutional” criticism launched for mentioning “forced password cracking”
In a text message from the Ministry of Justice around 8:12 am on the same day, Minister Chu said: “If the suspect maliciously hides the mobile phone password and interferes with the investigation, please refer to foreign legislation such as the Kingdom United and enforce implementation under certain conditions, such as court orders and sanctions for non-compliance. I ordered a review of the legislation. ”
Minister Chu’s order was that the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, which is investigating Shillazen’s alleged coverage, seized and searched the iPhone of Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon (47th, 27th Judicial Research and Training Institute) in June this year. Do you agree. Minister Chu also ordered the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office to find out the truth about whether the prosecution process of Gwangju District Attorney General Jin-woong Jung (52/29), who assaulted a prosecutor during the seizure and search of a simulator of mobile phone in July this year was appropriate. . On the 27th of last month, the Seoul Senior Prosecutor’s Office indicted Deputy Prosecutor Chung for assault in self-defense, and the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office requested the Ministry of Justice on the 5th to remove Deputy Prosecutor Chung from office. Minister Chu argued that “procedural problems arose, such as the exclusion of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office from approval in the process of requesting the exclusion of the president.”
In the legal community, it was pointed out that it was an illegal idea to deprive the suspect of the rights guaranteed by the constitution. An attorney who used to be a special warrant judge said: “This is the purpose of viewing the information in the suspect’s head as a matter of confiscation. It wasn’t during the military regime and what would you do if you didn’t tell me your password? ”. He noted that it is a law that denies freedom of conscience under the constitution. “It is an unconstitutional idea that the Minister of Justice, who should be retaining the constitution and the protection of human rights, accuses the party of exercising the right of defense, which is a constitutional right, as fraudulent, and dictates a law to prevent it ”.
There are also criticisms that the current government’s emphasis on protecting the human rights of suspects is not in line with the direction of the prosecution reform. Former lawmaker Geum Tae-seop, who recently left the Democratic Party, said on Facebook: “Can we violate the important principles that we have built for decades for human rights guarantees overnight? “It is also from the government that pursues progressive values,” he said. “I am ashamed to be a lawyer of mine and honestly irresistibly angry with the members of the Minbyun Democratic National Assembly (group of lawyers of the democratic society) who keep silent without saying a word about these things. did.
Minister Chu posted a Facebook post around 5pm on the same day, “The UK’s ‘Investigative Authority Regulation Act (RIPA)’, when the code cannot be cracked since 2007, the investigating agency requests the court permission to crack the code against the suspect. ” “Despite the court’s decision to grant the permit, if the suspect does not comply with the order, he will be jailed for up to two years for general offenders,” he explained. However, RIPA was established in 2000 with the aim of preventing terrorist crime and has been criticized for remembering ‘Big Brother’ by allowing users to search for phone call, email and internet logs without their consent in the UK. . In particular, the provision to force the cracking of mobile phone passwords has been suspended for more than six years due to the controversy over human rights violations. A prosecution official said: “I know there is such a law in Britain for terrorists only. Are you saying that the acting prosecutor is on the same level as a terrorist?
● Direct orders from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of the Minister.
It is also reported that it is illegal for Minister Chu to direct orders to the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office following the involvement of Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol in the Lime and Optimus cases, and special activities expenses. “According to article 8 of the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office, the command of a specific case is only done through the attorney general. Many see this as a reason to accuse the minister. ”
Minister Chu did not double down on the accusations that there was a problem in the process of deciding the prosecution against Prosecutor Chung at the Seoul Senior Prosecutor’s Office. The Seoul Senior Prosecutor’s Office said, “As a matter decided by combining the opinions of prosecutors, the prosecutor’s office prosecuted the prosecutor as the chief prosecutor, and there was no opinion of non-prosecution.” However, Minister Chu argues that the chief prosecutor of the Seoul Superior Prosecutor’s Office was skeptical about the prosecution of Deputy Prosecutor Chung, and the prosecution was reassigned and charged. There are also concerns that Minister Chu’s order could have an effect on the decision to re-investigate Chu’s son’s alleged vacation preference case while in the military, currently appealed to the Seoul Senior Prosecutor’s Office. The practicing prosecutor said: “It is inappropriate to say that the appropriateness of the indictment against the Seoul Senior Prosecutor’s Office should be seen as pressure for the Seoul Senior Prosecutor’s Office in charge of the appeal case to avoid a reconsideration order.”
Reporter Eunji Wizi [email protected]
Reporter Shin Dong-jin [email protected]
Copyright by dongA.com All rights reserved.
