[ad_1]
Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae ordered the revision of the bills called ‘Han Dong Hoon Law’ and ‘Password Confession Law’, while lawmakers from the ruling party of the Lawyers Association for the Democratic Society (Minbyun) have not disclosed their position. Minbyun and Participation Solidarity expressed concern about the bill.
Minister Chu said on the 12th that the prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, an assistant to the attorney general Yoon Seok-yeol, “maliciously concealed” the mobile phone password confiscated by the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office.
Former Democratic Party congressman Tae-seop Geum said today: “Can we violate the really important principles that the government has built for decades to guarantee human rights in pursuit of progressive values?” “Can we be silent without saying a word about this? “Honestly, I am irresistibly angry at the Minbyun Democratic Party legislators.” Representative Geum is from Minbyun.
Media Today, on the 13th, Minbyun Democratic Party lawmakers were asked about their positions via phone calls and text messages.
Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min said in the media today and by phone that day, “The right to reject statements is a very important constitutional value, and the Ministry of Justice is opposed to directly penalizing the law ( for not giving the password) “. It was positive that Minister Chu raised the issue.
Assemblyman Kim mentioned two things. Under current law, refusing to measure alcohol consumption is subject to punishment on its own, regardless of whether or not you are driving under the influence. The Constitutional Court decided that the bill was constitutional. This is because it is not a “statement” but a “state”. Representative Kim said: “It can be said that not declaring the password is the right to refuse to testify, but there may be controversy about whether it is possible to protect fingerprints or patterns (to open a mobile phone) because it is not a declaration.
Additionally, Congressman Kim mentioned a case where the Seoul Central District Court issued a seizure and search warrant to collect fingerprint and iris information in December last year. The prosecution requested an order to unlock the cell phone of the suspect who was accused of running an illegal gambling site, and this is the first case to issue this. At the time, there was a controversy over whether it was a legitimate order or a crime of self-denial (right not to be forced to make unreasonable statements).
Deputy Kim said: “It can be considered similar to this controversy, but the difference between verbal or not” said: “The right to reject statements is a very important value, but it is a situation that can be neutralized by technological development, and on the other hand, finding evidence of crime through technological development. It also becomes difficult. ”
Faced with the confrontation with Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol, Minister Chu and Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol gave a political controversy, and Congressman Kim also expressed his opposition to the bill itself. It is an explanation. Representative Kim added, “The Chamber N case that Minister Chu spoke about was also a case of blasphemy, but if the crime is not proven, will there be criticism about ‘what is the investigating agency doing?'”
Regarding the matter, legislators Park Bum-gye, Park Ju-min, Baek Hye-ryeon, Lee Jae-jung, Jeon Hae-cheol, Jeong Seong-ho and Jin Seon-mi did not give an answer until the afternoon of the day. 13.
Representative Lee Jae-jung said on YTN radio ‘Departing from New Morning of Hwang Bo-seon’ on the poster. I agree with the criticism points of the ‘Han Dong Hoon Law’ of the person who mentioned the ‘Han Dong Hoon Law’, but I can’t help but be surprised to see that those who were not interested in human rights generally adhere to the spirit of the constitution “.
On the 13th, Minbyun made a review. Minbyun mentioned the principle of denial of self-denial in Article 12, Clause 2 of the Constitution, where no one would be obliged to make a statement that is unfavorable to them. It is a direct infringement of the right of the accused to defend and of the suspect. ”
Meanwhile, the solidarity of participation also made a criticism in the day. In a comment that the Center for Judicial Monitoring for Solidarity Participation “retrograde the reform of the prosecution, the violation of human rights and the introduction of” interference in justice “”, said that “it goes against the reform of the prosecution, which is decentralization and reduction of the authority of the prosecution. The review of the introduction of the contrary system must be stopped immediately. “He added:” The Ministry of Justice must immediately stop this review order and strive for adequate judicial reform that reduces and decentralizes the judicial authority.
Copyright © Media Today, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.
[ad_2]
