[ad_1]
A broadcast booth is installed in front of the Seoul Administrative Court on the 29th, one day before the deadline for interrogation on the suspension of execution of the exclusion of duties of the Minister of Justice, Choo Mi-ae, against the prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. Reporter Seo Jae-hoon
The prosecutor who was in charge of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in connection with the suspicion of the ‘sentencing department’ of Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol dismissed his opinion that ‘the crime does not exist’, and that the Ministry of Justice excluded, sanctioned and requested Yun’s investigation. He insisted. This testimony is expected to be in the nature of a statement of conscience that arose from the situation one day before the questioning of the request for stay of execution of the exclusion provision filed by President Yoon in court.
Prosecutor Lee Jeong-hwa (41st, 36th Judicial Research and Training Institute) published a post on the internal communication network of the Eprus prosecutor’s office on the 29th, saying: “The problem of disciplinary procedure.” “The decision to request an investigation from the president was not made based on the results of a reasonable and legal review, and the procedure” I could not help my doubts that it was even illegal. “Prosecutor Lee Jeong-hwa explained that recently it was sent to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Justice and was in charge of the judicial review of the document “ Analysis of the Division of Major Cases and Sentence ” among the reasons for President Yoon’s disciplinary request.
The prosecutor said, “As a result of the review and analysis of the content of the documents in the (Ministry of Justice inspection) and the conviction for violation (of President Yoon) of the exercise of ex officio rights, it was difficult to establish.” The prosecutors did not differ from my findings, so I collect the records as is, ”he wrote.
According to this prosecutor, the contents confirmed by the prosecution were the only means of delivery of the document. To find out how the list of ‘Mul-Yagi Judges’ was included in the document, I tried to contact a person who was familiar with the document writing process around 5:20 pm on the 24th, and Minister Chu took over. around 6:10 pm on the day. It was announced that he had ruled out and demanded discipline. The practical prosecutor’s facts have yet to be confirmed, but President Yoon made the decision to exclude him from work and request disciplinary action.
On the 26th, two days later, the Supreme Prosecutor Yoon was commissioned by the Justice Ministry to investigate, and in the process, some of the review reports he had drawn up were removed without explanation, the prosecutor said. The prosecutor said: “I have never been criticized for the existence of a crime of obstruction of the exercise of the right to abuse of authority among the contents I reviewed. Without knowing if the review was carried out with different content, the parts of the content that I wrote that were inconsistent with the content of the investigation request were removed without a reasonable explanation. “
Inside and outside the prosecution, if the prosecutor’s argument is correct, the assessment that the prosecution of the Ministry of Justice violated the prosecution procedure prevails. If the individual prosecutor’s report and the superior’s opinion are different, the report will not be reviewed or adopted as a report with the opinions summarized at the end of the discussion. According to the prosecution’s assertion, it means that the superiors did not confirm the facts and executed President Yoon’s request for exclusion, disciplinary action and investigation despite the objection that the allegations were not established. A lawyer who was a chief prosecutor pointed out that the results of the inspection were assembled with the fragmentary facts that the document exists and opinions that suit the taste of the conclusion that the document exists for the conclusion that it is’ to expel the President Yoon ‘. A higher prosecutor’s office also said, “If the prosecution procedure is illegal, it will be difficult not to hand the court over to Mr. Yoon.” “The disciplinary committee with a strong encouragement from Minister Chu might push for Mr. Yun’s discipline, but the subsequent storm will not be easy.” He looked out.
The Office of the Inspector General of the Ministry of Justice refuted prosecutor Lee Jeong-hwa’s argument. The Prosecutor’s Office said: “There was no disagreement that it could be considered as a reason for disciplinary action for the violation of the duties of the attorney general who instructs the preparation of the document ‘Analysis of the Judiciary in Major Cases’ and is responsible for supervision. Although there were disagreements on the establishment of the allegation of abuse of authority, the prosecution explained that the investigation was requested because there may be more documents with similar content.
Aram ahn reporter [email protected]
You can also watch the Naver Et news edited by Hankook Ilbo.
Issues that may interest you
[ad_2]
