[ad_1]
Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol▶ Click here to enlarge the view
The reason the court decided on the 24th to suspend Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol’s two-month suspension was because it determined that additional hearings were necessary on the basis of disciplinary action and there was a clear flaw in the disciplinary resolution process. .
The 12th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Deputy Judge Hong Soon-wook), which was in charge of the trial, largely admitted irrecoverable damages and urgent necessity, which are the usual requirements for stay of execution, but did not accept any concerns that could have a significant impact on public welfare.
In this trial, the motives and disciplinary procedures that will be dealt with in the main case were examined, since it was difficult to make a decision on the main lawsuit that sought the cancellation of the disciplinary provision until July of next year, when the president’s term ends. Yoon.
The court found that the reason for the disciplinary action required an additional hearing on the main claim, but found the “court analysis document” highly inappropriate.
◇ Invalid disciplinary committee evasion vote … The rest of the procedure is ignored.
It is analyzed that the judgment of the Judiciary that it was illegal for the Prosecutor’s Office and the Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of Justice to voluntarily vote against the member of the disciplinary committee was considered important because of Yun’s decision to suspend the disciplinary action this time.
The Judiciary said: “To vote against evasion, at least 4 members, who are the majority of registered members, must be present,” and said: “After leaving the member who received the evasion request, the 3 remaining members participated in the evasion and were invalidated. “
Previously, during the second interrogation of the disciplinary committee, President Yoon requested the denial against the chairman of the disciplinary committee, Jeong Han-jung, and Shin Seong-sik, head of the anti-corruption force of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, but three members took turns to reject the decision and a similar situation occurred in the first interrogation. .
However, the judiciary admitted that the remaining shortcomings of the disciplinary procedure, such as the appointment of Professor Han-jung Jeong as a member of the disciplinary committee and the participation of the director of the prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice, Shim Jae-cheol, who participated as a member of the disciplinary committee, the appointment of a reserve member and the non-disclosure of the list of disciplinary members, “were not grounds.” I did not do it.
Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae, who was the chairman of the disciplinary committee, but did not participate in the disciplinary deliberation, said there was no problem with the appointment of the disciplinary committee.
◇ “Inappropriate ‘Judge Analysis Document’ … needs additional hearing”
The judge first determined that some of Yoon’s four reasons for the disciplinary action had been clarified, but all considered that additional hearings were necessary.
In particular, the court emphasized that “it is very inappropriate in terms of the risk of being abused, and that this type of document should not be written in the future” in relation to the creation of the ‘Judge’s Analysis Document’ that generated suspicion of the inspection of the judges.
However, he thought there should be an additional audience on how the data is being used, the method of acquisition of the data, the purpose of the distribution, and the claim that it was written repeatedly.
In Channel A’s case, he said, “there is scope for disciplinary action to be requested to some extent,” but it should be addressed more in the main lawsuit.
On the other hand, he said that there is room for a lack of clarification to hinder the investigation of the Canal A case, and that the credibility of the statements cited in the disciplinary resolution must be seen.
It was also said that the reason for undermining President Yoon’s political neutrality was difficult to conclude that it was difficult to conclude that what he termed “service to our society and the people” as an indication of political activity did not recognize its validity.
Attorneys who have completed a trial for stay of execution▶ Click here to enlarge the view
◇ Some recognized ‘Difficulty to recover damages’ … ‘Influence on public welfare’ disapproved
Conflicting judgments were made on the usual requirements for stay of execution. The judiciary ruled that the two-month suspension would result in damages for which Yun could not fulfill his duties, and this was tangible and intangible damage that was remarkably difficult to bear.
Furthermore, considering the procedure and content of the disciplinary action, the possibility of winning the main bill and the remaining term of President Yoon, there is an urgent need to prevent harm.
However, the Justice Ministry’s statement of “concern that it will have a significant impact on public welfare” was not accepted, saying: “We cannot conclude there is an impact.”
This ruling is in line with the court’s conclusion in the trial for stay of execution, which President Yoon filed last month in opposition to Minister Chu’s disciplinary claim and exclusion from his duties.
However, the judiciary reduced the scope of the ‘difficult to recover’ recognition. Yoon did not admit that the prosecution’s claim that the entire prosecution would suffer irreparable damage, such as a breach in the prosecution’s operation due to the suspension of the prosecution’s disposition and willingness to investigate.
At the same time, he brought up the fact that Yoon expressed his conviction that he was “not loyal to the people” after investigating the case of the National Intelligence Service’s comments in the past.
Regarding President Yoon’s claim that “the honesty provision is retaliation for the investigation of the living power,” the judge said, “It is difficult to admit that disciplinary measures were taken for the purpose of requesting resignation.”
[연합뉴스]
Copyright ⓒ Yonhap News. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited
