[ad_1]
“Fixed internal affairs, such as refusal to punish victims
Not reported to the National Police Agency or the Blue House “
Controversy still remains in chief Kim Chang-ryong’s clarification
viewer
Regarding the case in which Vice Minister of Justice Lee Yong-gu assaulted a taxi driver before taking office and was not punished, Police Chief Kim Chang-ryong announced on the 28th that “there is no problem that the Seoul Seocho Police Station, which is in charge, has closed internal affairs. ” Commissioner Kim made his first position on the case of this deputy minister and completely denied the allegations of the police investigation. However, it is noted that such an explanation is insufficient to resolve the dispute.
Commissioner Kim told a press conference that day: “The case happened on the 6th of last month and internal affairs were closed on the 12th.” He said: “At Seocho-seo, we decided to apply the crime of assault by reviewing the situation of the site, the victim’s statement and related precedents. It has not been reported to the National Police Agency and the National Police Agency, and the Blue House has not been reported ”. This is a comment to the effect that there is no connection between his status and the conclusion of internal affairs because it was concluded before the appointment of Vice Minister Lee to the Ministry of Justice on the 2nd of this month.
According to the police, Vice Minister Lee was known to have captured the fate of a taxi driver who woke him from a dream in a taxi in front of his apartment in Seocho-gu, Seoul, last night. The police closed internal affairs due to an agreement with the victims, but the controversy grew when the Law of Aggravated Punishment for Specific Crimes (Special Law) was not applied. Under the Special Law, the crime of assault on the driver can be investigated even if the victim does not want punishment.
The police say that not applying the Special Law is not a problem and that it was handled according to legal procedure. A senior official from the National Police Agency said: “It can be understood that the special pricing law should be applied solely from the literature. To determine whether you are driving or not, you must consider whether you are driving.” The criterion for ‘driving’ is the precedent of the Supreme Court of 2008. It is valid even after the revision of the Special Prices Law ”, he explained.
A 2008 Supreme Court precedent stated that “ a state in which a car is parked or stopped with no intention of continuing to drive in a place where there is no fear of affecting the safety of public traffic, etc. it cannot be considered as in operation. ” Regarding the fact that the incident was on a general road and not within an apartment complex, he explained that “the amount of traffic at the time of the incident and the pedestrians must be considered” and “it was judged that it was not a moment or place to worry about order and traffic safety ”. Commissioner Kim hung up and said he had no plans to inspect the person in charge of the case.
However, it is evaluated that the police explanation is still insufficient to silence the controversy. Taking into account that the Special Law was revised in response to the point that the penalty of aggression for taxi drivers and bus drivers should be strengthened, the voice prevails that the police should have been sent to the prosecution with opinions of prosecution or non-prosecution at least after the presentation of this loan.
Meanwhile, the prosecution plans to investigate the case of this loan, which a civic group accused of violating the Special Price Law, assigning it to the 5th criminal division of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office.
/ Reporter Han Dong-hoon [email protected]
< 저작권자 ⓒ 서울경제, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지 >
