‘Let’s leave it to the common sense of the people’ … What is the content of the ‘Judge’s Document’ published by the government?

School, disposition, judgment, etc.

尹 side “a frame is created with the word of the temple”

秋 “The document is the result of an inspection of illegal criminal activities”

On the morning of the 17th, Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae (left) attends the State Council meeting held at the Seoul Government Complex, and Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol addresses the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office in Seocho -gu, Seoul. / Yonhap News

When Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol completely denied the alleged “prosecutors’ suspicions about the judicial inspection” and revealed the related documents, Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae set fire as a request for an investigation. The conflict between the two sides is escalating as Minister Chu’s notification of assistance to the Disciplinary Committee and Minister Yoon’s requests for investigation against President Yoon’s lawsuit quickly intersect.

On the 26th, attorney Wan-gyu Lee, representing Yun, released an internal report from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office on the suspicion of inspecting the court on the 26th when Minister Chu suspended Yoon’s duties. “We believe it is necessary to disclose accurate facts, so we will release some of the documents submitted as evidence as a minimum requirement,” Lee said. Among the six reasons suggested as the basis for the suspension of office, President Yoon is actively responding to the fact that the distortion of suspicion from the inspections of the recently excommunicated Judiciary is serious.

The document released on this day is a report entitled “ Analysis of the Judicial Power in Large Special Cases and Public Safety ”, with a total of 9 pages. It is estimated that ’20 .2.26 ‘written at the bottom right of the title is the date the document was reported. The report was written in tabular form, and around 30 judges from high school, college, major trials, opinions, and special issues were recorded in relatively detail.

At the main sentencing points, the results of the trial were recorded, including the sentence sentence per case and the summary of the case. It seems that mainly cases that are socially controversial or of great public interest are listed. ‘Recognition of the second responsibility of national responsibility of the families of the survivors of the Sewol ferry’. The content of the sentences was underlined in some cases, such as the “ acknowledgment of responsibility for compensation by police officers for spraying farming families. ”

Sepyeong items contained various content without a consistent format. Most of the controversial content, such as “Korea Law Research Association, but the assessment that it is reasonable” and “Including the list of judges who caused water in 16 years from the Ministry of Administration and Government Administration”, were included in the evaluation elements. It is known to be a criticism of the case of former Justice Minister Cho Kook and former Supreme Court Justice Yang Seung-tae respectively.

Subjective evaluations by the author were also included without addition or subtraction, such as “there is no presence in the trial”, “the review that it is influenced by public opinion or the surrounding environment rather than by subjectivity”, and “I want to continue with the ceremony of the spectacle (judgment) ”. Some personal content irrelevant to the trial was also included, such as, ‘Before the appointment of a judge, he was active in the college basketball league and a general fan, and was famous for his basketball skills since he was at the University of Law in Seoul. ‘

Attorney Wan-gyu Lee said, “I was concerned that the prosecution might appear to be an immoral group inspecting the courts with this document.” He noted that “if all commercial materials are temples because there is personal information, the word ‘temples’ is used unfairly,” he noted, “a frame is created with the word temple attached.” He added: “I think it is not a temple, but let’s leave it to the judgment of the public’s common sense.” Regarding the document, an official of the Supreme Court said: “We take very seriously the current situation in which judges are mentioned and we are attentive to the ongoing procedures such as investigation and disciplinary action.”

Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae addresses the Gwacheon Government Complex in Gyeonggi Province on the 27th./Yonhap News

Minister Chu launched a counterattack requesting a flash investigation with the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office on charges of interfering with the exercise of the right to abuse of authority, about two hours after Yoon’s side released the internal documents. Minister Chu set the day when the document inside the Great Sword was ‘inspection as a criminal act’ and ‘the result of grave illegality’. The Justice Ministry said: “The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Investigative Information Policy is a place that collects ‘investigative information’ and is not an organization that collects personal information and propensity data from judges and distributes them to judges. prosecutors. Meanwhile, managing itself is an inspection as a criminal act. ”

The night before the day before the work stoppage, President Yoon submitted an online application to the Seoul Administrative Court to stay the effect of the work stoppage and also filed a lawsuit to cancel the work stoppage provision that afternoon. . The three-page entry statement was also published. Yoon explained that this is to alleviate the confusion due to a large number of inaccurate reports due to the one-sided argument from the Ministry of Justice.

/ Reporter Jang Deok-jin [email protected]