[ad_1]
Supreme Prosecutor 3, computer forensics
秋, the investigation after the announcement raises doubts
Document drafting prosecution raises questions to Eprus
“I have not investigated myself, but it is not a temple”
viewer
The controversy arose when the Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office is working on the computer forensic work of the heads of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office. In a briefing on the 24th, Minister Choo Mi-ae previously cited “illegal inspection of the judiciary in important cases such as that of former Minister Cho Kook” as one of President Yoon Seok-yeol’s misconduct charges. However, it is noted that “ the order of the prosecution’s investigations and announcements is not correct ” both within and outside the legal profession after the allegations of misconduct were announced and then investigated. The reaction is that there are doubts about the so-called ‘pre-announcement and post-investigation’.
The 3rd Prosecution Division, commanded by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office Han Dong-soo, is reported to have secured the computers of the executives of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office on the 25th and is inspecting them internally. What the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office is confirming through computer forensic work is the suspicion of an inspector of the judiciary that Minister Chu picked up as one of the reasons for the exclusion of General Yoon’s duties the day before.
The question is whether the Ministry of Justice has properly investigated the reasons for the misconduct that Minister Chu mentioned when requesting exclusion and disciplinary action against General Yoon. Given that the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation late after the announcement of the misconduct allegations, there is concern within and outside the prosecution that the corruption charges were explicitly declared without investigation. The day before, the prosecution refuted that the prosecution had continued to understand the propensity of the court as a party to a criminal proceeding for the announcement of Supreme Gumdo Chu.
A prosecution official criticized that “it is unprecedented in history to carry out an investigation after announcing that there is a charge of corruption,” he said. “As there is a problem in the process, it is questionable that the investigation was carried out.” An attorney official also said: “From the outside, it is even said that the Ministry of Justice simply took a report and took disciplinary action without even investigating the grand indictment.”
viewer
Furthermore, even the prosecutor who drafted the actual document raised doubts about the investigative process. Seong Sang-wook, the second head of the Goyang district office, who drafted the document that Minister Chu pointed to as an illegal inspection, posted a message on the internal network of the prosecution, ‘Ipros’, saying:’ I will explain the documents of the judicial department in important cases’. “It is misinterpreted as if the data was made through a follow-up or a background investigation, but it is revealed to be not true at all,” said Prosecutor Sung. He explained that the data was written based on the data sought through the law office, media articles, portal sites and Google, and that if he needed help from the trial prosecutor, he requested it by phone. Prosecutor Sung said: “The Supreme Swordsman’s Anti-Corruption Forces Department and the Public Investigation Department were ordered to make every effort to maintain important trials by organizing trial procedures and the content of past trials. the judiciary in important cases. The Bureau of Investigation and Information Policy also contributed to the task. “The purpose of this is that it is only useful material to sustain the indictment, and the temples are clearly not true. In particular, he said,” No one, including the Ministry of Justice, you have asked me or asked about the document, which is in charge of drafting it. Although it was an explainable matter, it is difficult to understand that there was no confirmation in the process of filing a disciplinary complaint against the attorney general. ”
/ Reporter Ahn Hyun-deok and Jo Kwon-hyeong [email protected]
< 저작권자 ⓒ 서울경제, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지 >
