Prosecutor of “Jujubongdan”

▶ Click here to enlarge

Regarding the suspicion that Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol inspected the judges of the judiciary, the prosecutor in charge of the investigation and trial of cases of abuse of the judicial administration said: “I have never shared the list of judges in the water with the great prosecutor. “

According to law enforcement officials on the 29th, the head of Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office 1 Team (Chief Prosecutor) recently said, “Prosecutors in charge of maintaining prosecution in the case of abuse of this data (list of judges causing water) is being used by the judicial administration authority including myself for the prosecutor’s investigative information policy, I have not provided it to any other department or government office.

Previously, the Ministry of Justice heard an internal report prepared in February by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office for Investigation Policy and Information Policy as one of the reasons for Yoon’s exclusion and request for investigation.

In the document, the high school / college of the 37 judges, major judgments and opinions were recorded. One of the judges was described as’ Including the list of judges who caused the waters of the Ministry of Government Administration (20) 16

On this, it was suspected that the prosecution had prepared the document using the list of judges confiscated as evidence in the last Nongdan court case.

In response, Chief Prosecutor Dan said: “The judge is the judicial judge who is in charge of trying one of the cases of abuse of the authority of the judicial administration.” “This could be a problem,” he said.

He said, “We shared this with the other prosecutors on the trial team and reported it to the head of the department,” he said. “The fact that this judge is included in the list means that it may have been confirmed through the prosecutors involved in the trial in our case.” .

However, the attorney general refers to his experience investigating illegal inspections in relation to the suspicion of the “judge’s inspection”. I remember that I had to clarify the illegality of the purpose, etc. “

He noted: “I am curious what evidence was used to determine the illegal inspection. I should have asked for clarification or questions from me or my team regarding the collection of information in the report, but there is no such fact at all.”

He asked, “Isn’t the statement and data that served as the basis for the disciplinary claim just the statement of Shim Jae-cheol, the current prosecutor, and a relevant document?”

He added: “I believe that this investigation and disciplinary complaint by the Ministry of Justice violated or ignored too many legal processes, misrepresented or falsified facts and abused the right of investigation.

[연합뉴스]

Copyright ⓒ Yonhap News. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited