[ad_1]
[모멘트] Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae and Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol▶ Click here to enlarge the view
The extreme showdown between Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae and Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol is expected to peak at the Justice Ministry’s Prosecutor’s Discipline Committee on the 10th.
On that day, the disciplinary committee will seriously deliberate on the six misconduct charges brought by Secretary General Choo.
◇ Deliberation on authenticity, how to interfere with the judge’s inspection and Channel A investigation … Inevitable before litigation
The central issue of the disciplinary committee is the suspicion of a “judge’s inspection”, first known as a disciplinary complaint by Minister Chu. In a document prepared by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office for Research and Information Policies in February, the institute / university from which the 37 judges in charge of the case came, the main sentences and opinions were controversial.
The main topic of deliberation is whether Yoon interfered with the investigation to cover for prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, a close friend, in the case of an attempted attempt by a former reporter on Channel A, which caused the start of the investigation by Minister Chu.
The legitimacy of this accusation, which was controversial since the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office initiated a “ backwards ” investigative investigation against the Can Inspection, is probably a problem.
Faced with the confrontation between the two sides without even backing down, it is inevitable that a fatal blow for either side is inevitable according to the decision of the disciplinary committee. The general opinion of the legal community is that litigation in the medium and long term is inevitable even after the disciplinary committee ends.
The conflict between the two parties is expected to lead to a court battle and a roller coaster ride, with the addition of an administrative lawsuit pursuant to the disciplinary action and a request for suspension of the execution of the Constitutional Petition of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Law of Discipline, which has already entered the hearing, and the appeal for the suspension of the execution of the exclusion of duty.
Court decides to suspend the execution of the effect of suspension of functions by Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol (PG)▶ Click here to enlarge the view
◇ Fall- 尹 conflict that has continued during the first year … Disciplinary claim is “frontal battle”
Since the beginning of this year, Minister Chu and President Yoon have been in constant conflict over issues such as the distribution of the prosecution and the command of investigations in relation to the prosecution staff, the Channel A case, and the allegations of falsification of testimonies in the trial of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook.
The conflict between the two was flagrant in the Lime Asset Management crisis in October, when Minister Chu produced an inspection card on suspicion of hiding the lobby from opposition politicians, and finally, on the 24th of last month, when Minister Chu filed a disciplinary lawsuit against President Yoon and fired him from his job, a total war. I met him.
The confrontation between the two parties, which became a lawsuit due to President Yoon’s legal response, was drastically reversed on Day 1, when the Seoul Administrative Court cited President Yoon’s request for suspension of the ban from duties. .
With the recommendation of the opinion of the supervision committee of the Ministry of Justice on ‘discipline and exclusion of functions’ and the decision of the court to return to the position of president, it was assessed that Yoon had the upper hand in public opinion.
The disciplinary committee, originally scheduled for the 2nd, was postponed twice to the 10th following the 4th. This also reflected President Yoon’s request to guarantee the right to defend, but the resignation of Deputy Justice Minister Ki-Young Ko and the emphasis President Moon Jae-in’s on “ procedural justice ” were the background.
◇ Intensification of the confrontation between the two parties, which continued right before the disciplinary committee
The unfavorable situation continued to respond to the suspicion of ‘inspection by the judge’ at the meeting of the delegation of judges on the 7th, but Minister Chu did not bend his will to enforce the disciplinary committee.
Above all, it is an analysis that President Moon, who reaffirmed the incumbent’s advancement for prosecution reform, said: “I hope this is the last pain for democracy and reform.”
The battles of both sides continued without skipping a day until the day before the disciplinary committee.
Yoon’s side filed a constitutional complaint on the 4th, saying that the prosecutor’s disciplinary law, which required the minister to appoint and appoint a disciplinary committee, was unconstitutional after Minister Chu enforced the disciplinary committee.
Then on the same day, the minister’s side overruled the court’s decision to return to the office of President Yoon, who had been suspended the same day, to the office of president, and immediately challenged it with an appeal.
The two parties also faced the disclosure of the list of disciplinary members and the legality of the disciplinary procedure.
Yoon’s side, taking into account the disciplinary bias of the disciplinary committee, asked the Ministry of Justice to hand over the list of disciplinary members, but the Ministry of Justice confronts the list, saying that the list of members is not subject to disclosure. .
Yoon’s side argued that Minister Chu could not take over the president’s functions as a disciplinary plaintiff, such as notifying the disciplinary date, but the Ministry of Justice refuted that it was not a problem to continue with the summons procedure, as he was not only involved in deliberation.
[연합뉴스]
Copyright ⓒ Yonhap News. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited
