[ad_1]
 |
| © News1 Designer Choi Soo-ah |
The interrogation date for the stay of execution of Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol’s office begins.
The Fourth Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Chairman Judge Mi-yeon Cho) will open the interrogation date on the stay of execution of the provision of stay of execution of the position by President Yun v. Chu at 11 a.m. on the 30th. The questioning took place in private and Yoon announced his intention to be absent.
This stay of execution is the court’s first ruling on the long-standing conflict between Minister Chu and President Yoon.
If the court accepts the request for stay of execution, the effect of the disposition for stay of execution of the charge is suspended until the decision on the original first instance case, and Yoon can continue to perform his duties. In this case, the court judges that the minister’s disposition is wrong, so Minister Chu will suffer a great blow.
On the contrary, if the decision to impeach is made, President Yoon becomes unable to fulfill his duties for the remaining term. The decision on the main issue will most likely be finalized after President Yoon’s term ends, and since the disciplinary committee of the Ministry of Justice is scheduled for day 2, it is pretty much the same as dismissal.
Therefore, both sides are expected to engage in an all-out battle with life and death on the date of the interrogation today.
◇ Is the illegal inspection of the main judicial information documents … The interior is also fun
Minister Chu decided on the 24th that it was no longer acceptable for the Attorney General to perform his duties.
Minister Chu said: △ Inappropriate contact with the media company △ Illegal inspection by the judiciary in important cases such as the case of former Justice Minister Cho Kook, △ Interference with the surveillance and investigation of the media for the protection of close collaborators in the Channel A case and former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook In the process of a face-to-face investigation by the attorney general, he cited as a reason for the exclusion the fact that the duty of cooperation and obstruction of the prosecution △ the fact of that the dignity and confidence of the attorney general with regard to political neutrality are seriously affected as a reason for exclusion.
Since the announcement, the most controversial issue has been whether or not the judiciary was illegally inspected, so a fierce interrogation battle is expected to be fought that day.
The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, which summarizes the information of the judges belonging to the Judiciary in a specific case, is made known through President Yoon’s lawyer, and the truth is questioned while the Prosecutor’s Office continues to expose the document.
On the afternoon of the 28th, the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, responsible for investigating and maintaining prosecution in alleged abuses of judicial administration authority, told Eprus on the afternoon of 28: “The prosecutors charged with maintaining the prosecution in cases of abuse of the authority of the judicial administration are Of course, I have not provided any other department. “
On the 29th, prosecutor Lee Jeong-hwa, who is posted to the Office of the Inspector General of the Ministry of Justice, concluded that it was difficult to establish an obstruction for abuse of office in connection with a request for an investigation into the allegation of interference with the exercise of office abuse rights against President Yoon, but publicly claimed that he was removed.
The Justice Ministry said: “There is no fact that someone deleted part of the report” by text notification immediately after the prosecutor’s complaint came out. “The judicial review report finalized by the prosecutor sent on the document of inspection is compiled into the inspection log as is. “I explained.
However, on the 30th, Deputy Prosecutor Cho Nam-gwan, known as Assistant Minister Chu, said: “Most prosecutors, including myself, are convinced that the President did not commit a serious misdemeanor or wrongful crime. enough to be shamefully expelled from his tenure. ” After requesting the removal of the exclusion, the burden on Minister Chu is increasing.
◇ President Yoon’s side “There is a general procedural problem for processing and disciplinary claims”
On the 29th, one day before the date of the hearing, President Yoon’s side also submitted an opinion statement to the court stating that there were general procedural problems arising from the prosecution and disciplinary claims.
The opinion contains the content that the optional revision of the ‘Regulation of Supervision of the Ministry of Justice’, which obliges the Minister to request advice from the Supervision Committee of the Ministry of Justice, which includes external personnel in the supervision of important matters recently, violates the Law of Administrative Procedure, a higher statute. It became known.
In general, if a disciplinary accusation against a prosecutor is admitted, in the case of an attorney general, the attorney general goes through a procedure to hear the views of the president, or the disciplinary or supervisory committee. In Yun’s case, however, Minister Chu directly requested disciplinary action and issued an order to suspend his duties. On questioning, the question is expected to be whether Minister Chu has deviated or abused his discretionary power in the process of exercising his authority.
Yoon’s side is said to argue that Minister Chu’s initiating the inspection without going through the inspection committee itself is an illegal procedure.
Earlier, on the 3rd, Minister Chu revised Article 4 of the Inspection Regulations of the Ministry of Justice, saying, “You can get advice from the Inspection Committee of the Ministry of Justice on the inspection of important matters.” The current article 4 of the Inspection Regulations of the Ministry of Justice establishes that “in the inspection of important matters, you must request the advice of the Inspection Committee of the Ministry of Justice. It is known that the Ministry of Justice did not inform the inspectors whether the review was carried out or not.
Article 46 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that “ in the event that an administrative agency intends to establish, implement or change policies, systems and plans, it must notify them ”, and stipulates that a notice period must be given 20 days or more unless special circumstances exist.
However, if the notice is extremely difficult due to urgent reasons, such as special circumstances, the notice may not take place.
The Justice Ministry also sparked controversy by “ approving ” Inspector Ryu Hyuk multiple times in connection with President Yoon’s request for an investigation. On the 17th, when two review prosecutors from the Ministry of Justice office attempted a face-to-face investigation with General Yoon, Inspector General Ryu was not aware of this, and it was reported that Minister Chu directly ordered Park. Inspector Liu is reportedly currently using a different building than the prosecutors in charge of the prosecution and has been largely excluded from Yun-related inspection duties.
◇ There are 8 months left … Will ‘impossible damages’ be accepted?
If Yun wins the main lawsuit in the future, it is pointless if the suspension is not accepted.
Yoon’s tenure is for eight months until July of next year, as the main lawsuit is likely to close after that.
The Deputy Judge of the Economy and Finance Law said: “This decision is, in fact, a judgment on the value of whether or not Yun will be in office until a new president is appointed.”
In this case, the observation that the results will be announced the day or the next day (December 1) predominates. If the judge does not reach a conclusion for the disciplinary committee, there is room for criticism that the court has avoided trying important cases.
However, there is a possibility that the conclusion may be delayed if the stay of execution case is a “war prior to the original proposal”, and if a more in-depth hearing as in-depth as the original claim is held. If the answers and explanations of both parties are insufficient, the court may request clarification.
However, the opinions of both parties can be received in writing without specifying an additional questioning date, and considering the urgency and materiality of the matter, it is not expected that it will take long to reach a conclusion.
[ad_2]
