[ad_1]
[사진 = 연합뉴스]At the Meeting of the Delegation of National Judges, it was discussed as an official agenda whether the analysis document of the Judiciary, which is the central reason for the disciplinary action of Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol, could be seen as a judicial inspection, but the opinion was not to respond officially. The judges’ meeting said it was suspicious of the political interpretation of the decision, but in fact, it appears that it will put power on the side of President Yun. The disciplinary committee of the Ministry of Justice, which will determine the disciplinary level of President Yoon, will be held at 10:30 am on the 10th.
On the 7th, the delegation of the judiciary proposed the agenda of “independence of the judges and guarantee of fairness in the trial” and voted. As a result of the vote, the agenda was rejected because the majority of the judges present did not agree. That day, 120 of the 125 representative judges attended the meeting of the judges’ delegation. As a result, President Yoon obtained a ‘favorable judgment’ at the meeting of the judges’ delegates following the results of the Commission of Prosecutors and the Administrative Court on the 1st.
The pro-side of the agenda argued that “the subject of the prosecution to collect information (investigative information policy office) is inappropriate and may infringe the independence of the judge in terms of status.” The opposing party said: “As a case in which the Seoul Administrative Court tribunal is still being tried and is likely to continue in the future, expressions should be made carefully at the level of the National Council of Judges for the independence of the tribunal.” . It could be, “he confronted.
The results of the meeting are expected to have an effect on Yun’s disciplinary committee. Yoon’s part points out the procedural justification before the disciplinary commission of the Ministry of Justice. Yoon’s side filed a request for interim injunction with a constitutional petition to review whether the prosecutor’s disciplinary law was unconstitutional. The purpose of this is for the disciplinary plaintiff, Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae, to be able to nominate the majority of the members of the disciplinary committee, thus lacking suitability and impartiality. Yoon’s lawyer Lee Wan-gyu announced that he would request an additional record of his prosecution from the Ministry of Justice on the same day, and that he would also request a list of the members of the disciplinary committee. The lawyer is also known to have stated that he would request an evasion if Vice Minister of Justice Lee Yong-gu participates as a member of the disciplinary committee.
Meanwhile, the fact that the prosecutor in charge of the Ministry of Justice, Park Eun-jeong, has revealed the details of a phone call between the prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, the attorney general Yoon Seok-yeol and Yoon Suk’s wife -yeol at the DA on day 1, is causing controversy. To reveal that General Yoon and Prosecutor Han were a “special relationship,” Park released the details of the call, part of the investigation records. In response, one of the prosecutors expressed regret and said: “It is absurd to reveal the details of the call, which is personal information, to the inspection committee.”
[박윤예 기자 / 정희영 기자][ⓒ 매일경제 & mk.co.kr, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]
