[ad_1]
[윤석열 정직 효력 중단, 법원 결정문 분석]Members who were evaded during the disciplinary decision cannot participate
The ‘damage to political neutrality’ is difficult to determine at this time
Other disciplinary reasons tried need more hearing
Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae (pictured left) and Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol head to work at the Gwacheon Government Complex and Supreme Prosecutor’s Office on the 16th. Newsis
The court cites the case of the request for stay of execution in force for two months, issued by Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol on the 24th, “The disciplinary action itself is invalid because the Prosecutor and the Disciplinary Committee (disciplinary committee) of the Ministry of Justice did not follow due process.”Declared. Not only the Ministry of Justice, but also the President, who approved the decision of the Ministry of Justice, became inescapable of criticism after the discipline of President Yoon.
The 12th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Director Soon-wook Hong), which heard the request for stay of execution, noted that “the disciplinary committee violated Article 17, paragraph 4 of the Prosecutor’s Discipline Law.” The provision stipulates that “the number of participants must exceed the majority of the enrolled members in a challenge decision, and a person who has received a challenge request cannot participate in a disciplinary decision.” However, when the General Disciplinary Commission resolved the reasons for the refusal of the two members, only three members of the five members present were heard, excluding the one who had been challenged. In other words, the number of members who participated in the evasion resolution did not reach the majority of registered members (4 out of 7).
For the same reason, “the challenge of three of the four finalists who participated in the disciplinary resolution was requested, and the disciplinary resolution itself was also invalid.” The Justice Ministry has twice postponed the disciplinary committee, stating that “President Yoon’s right of defense is guaranteed.” It has a form that follows, but the disciplinary committee, which is the ‘main game’, did not maintain it.
However, it’s hard to say that Yoon also scored a total victory. Yoon said: “It is procedurally illegal for the Ministry of Justice to appoint a professor Jung Han-jung, a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, and to evade after the Attorney General of the Department of Justice participated in the decision to evade, and that the Ministry of Justice did not reveal the disciplinary file or the list of disciplinary members, this is because they defeated all of the president’s claims.
‘Damage to political neutrality’ is not recognized as grounds for disciplinary action
Lawyer Ok-hyung Lee (left), a lawyer for the Ministry of Justice, and Seok-woong Lee, lawyer for Attorney General Yoon Suk-yeol, responded to the journalist’s question after completing the second interrogation on the suspension case. execution of the suspension of the suspension of the disposition held at the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the afternoon of the 24th. have. Yunhap news
Unlike the previous exclusion case, the court also ruled on the reasons for the disciplinary action that would be addressed in the main lawsuit. Considering the pleading plans announced by both parties, it is because “the main issue cannot be sentenced within the remaining term of the president’s mandate (7 months), so it is necessary to issue a similar judgment in the case of suspension of execution”.
First ①’Damage for political neutrality ‘ The charges stated that “currently, only explanatory data is not recognized as grounds for disciplinary action.” The truth of what he said “I will serve our society and the people after retirement” in the State audit of the Legislative and Judicial Commission of the National Assembly will be revealed in accordance with the actions after retirement, so it is explains that it is difficult to conclude that it is inappropriate at this time.
②’Channel A inspection ㆍ ③ Interference in investigation ‘ The charges said there was room for containment. In particular, he said: “There is room for disciplinary reasons because some reasons for disciplinary action have been clarified by the fact that Yun had to stop the inspection of the ‘high-ranking prosecutor officials of the Buddha’s name to the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, Han Dong-soo “. According to the law, supervision can only be stopped when the supervisory supervisor’s performance is noticeably unfair or is outside the scope of his duties, because President Yoon only received a report of the beginning of supervision and gave an order to stop it. At the same time, he added, “it is necessary to have a sufficient audience to know whether President Yoon intended to quickly interfere with the inspection and investigation.” The allegations of interference in the investigation of Channel A also explained that “the act of delegating the authority of the investigation to the Supreme Board of Prosecutors and withdrawing it is included in the authority of the attorney general,” they also explained that an additional hearing is necessary.
The controversy was so great that it was presented as an agenda in the National Assembly of Judges. ④’Preparation and distribution of analysis documents for the court ‘ Regarding the allegations, the sentence was withheld, saying: “It is inappropriate but requires additional explanatory data.” The Judiciary noted that “the relevant document was prepared by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office for Investigation Policies and Information in charge of investigative information and is highly inappropriate in the sense that there is a risk of abuse in the future, and this type of document should not be drawn up in the future. “ However, he said, “it is correct to make a final judgment after going through further scrutiny on the specific method and process of drafting the document.”
Recognition of damage and urgent need for difficult recovery
On the 24th, the Supreme Prosecutor’s office in Seocho-gu, Seoul was turned on on the 24th when the results of the request for suspension of the execution of the disciplinary effect of two months issued by the Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol came out. News 1
The judicial power Recognition of damage and urgent need for difficult recoverydid. Considering the legal personality and mandate of the Attorney General, he saw that “two months of honesty correspond to irreparable damages, and the urgent need to suspend the execution to avoid damages is recognized.” However, he drew a line, saying: “It cannot be concluded that claims that the instability of the administrative government or the division of national opinion affects the public welfare.”
At the same time, most of the facts that President Yoon argued as the need for the suspension were not recognized. Yoon’s side argued that “the punishment against the president is political retaliation for the investigation of the living power, and this seriously undermines the independence and neutrality of the prosecution,” but the court found that “there is no data to explain it.” Furthermore, they did not accept claims that “it is actually akin to firing” or that “there is an urgent need to stay execution after becoming plant manager.”
Jooyoung yoon reporter [email protected]
Subscribe to the Hankook Ilbo News Naver channel
Balance to see the world, the Hankook Ilbo Copyright © Hankookilbo
[ad_2]
