[ad_1]
 |
| Justice Minister Chu Miae (left) and Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol. 2020.12.1 / News1 © News1 Reporter by Yoo Seung-gwan |
The disciplinary committee of the prosecution (disciplinary committee) of the Ministry of Justice, which will deliberate on the disciplinary action of Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol, was postponed again and the extreme confrontation between Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae and President Yoon began. To hide.
However, before the disciplinary committee is postponed until the next 10, it is expected that the clashes between the two sides will intensify.
According to the legal community, on the 4th, Minister Chu accepted the request for re-designation of the term to ensure procedural rights and sufficient defense rights in relation to the deliberation of the disciplinary committee on the previous day (3rd). The deliberation date was set at 10 days to reflect the committee members’ calendar.
The disciplinary committee, originally scheduled for the last 2 days, requested a change in the date requesting the disclosure of information, such as the reading and recording of the disciplinary file, the disciplinary request and approval document and the list of members of the disciplinary committee, and postponed to 4.
Subsequently, the Criminal Procedure Law requires that the first date of the trial have a grace period of at least 5 days after the summons has been served. However, the day before, President Moon Jae-in stressed that “in light of the seriousness of the matter, we must further ensure legitimacy and procedural fairness.”
Eventually, the disciplinary committee was also postponed, and Minister Chu accepted President Yoon’s request. Before the disciplinary committee, the two are expected to engage in an all-out war to create a favorable phase for them.
First, Minister Chu was relieved of the burden of being caught up in the “procedural flaws” dispute with the reactivation of the disciplinary committee.
In the decision to postpone the disciplinary commission this time, a vice-president judge said: “It was broken by a procedural problem in the suspension of the exclusion of functions, and this time it seems a stone not to break with the procedural problem.”
Some say that if the disciplinary committee decided on the 4th as planned, the result itself would be canceled due to a procedural problem and there was a high possibility that public opinion would turn negative.
One prosecutor said: “If you proceed as is, the violation of the procedure is safe, and if the procedure is illegal, the possibility of cancellation is very high, so we change it.” It is also possible to interpret that Minister Chu had bought the time to accumulate procedural justification before applying the severe punishment of President Yun.
The Representative Meeting of National Judges, held on the 7th before the disciplinary commission, is also variable. It should be noted if the judges will discuss it while the vice-president judge proposed to put the ‘room analysis document’ prepared by the Supreme Prosecutor for Investigation Policy and Information Policy as the meeting’s agenda.
If the judges agree that the document is a violation of judicial independence, then Minister Chu could be authorized. However, it is a situation in which there is a controversy between the judges about whether to debate or not.
With the postponement of the disciplinary committee, Yun can buy time to “investigate the living power” and faithfully adhere to the logic of responding to the disciplinary committee.
On the 2nd, the Daejeon District Prosecutor’s Office requested an arrest warrant for three officials from the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy involved in the suspected manipulation of the economic viability of Unit 1 of the Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant.
If the court issues an arrest warrant after completing the interrogation of the suspects (substantive examination of the warrant) in the three scheduled for this day, the investigations against the top of the Blue House, such as Chae Hee-bong, president of Korea Gas Corporation, who was then the Blue House industrial policy secretary at the time, will also be hit. It is expected to mount.
Furthermore, criticism may arise again as to whether the decisive trigger for Minister Chu’s request for disciplinary action against President Yoon and the exclusion of duties was to prevent the prosecution from investigating nuclear power plants.
Yoon, who received hundreds of pages of inspection data from the Ministry of Justice the day before, had relatively little time to prepare. Yoon said that for the remainder of the period, “we will review the logs and establish a response strategy on what to do.”
It is also a positive factor that the Ministry of Justice has taken the form of guaranteeing a ‘procedural right’ that if a witness requested by President Yoon the day before is adopted as an economic witness by the disciplinary committee on the 10th, it can proceed with the process of the witness newspaper.
General Yoon’s side has requested three witnesses, including prosecutor Ryu Hyuk, prosecutor at the Ministry of Justice, Sohn Jun-sung, chief prosecutor in charge of investigation and information, and prosecutor Park Young-jin, who served as a detective. chief at the time of the Canal A case.
On the other hand, the fact that the ruling party announced that it would handle the revision of the law of the Office of Investigation of Crimes of Senior Officials (KAI) for the 9th seems to have been taken into account in the postponement date of the disciplinary committee.
[ad_2]
