[ad_1]
秋 The ruling is reserved for inquiries about the violation of the law prohibiting applications from former assistant
The Minister of Justice, Choo Mi-ae, is answering questions with the legislators in a plenary session held in the National Assembly on the 14th. When questioning the government in power, suspicions of the military favor of Choo’s son arose again. Reporter Oh Dae-geun
The National Rights Commission decided that the investigation of the prosecution’s suspicion of the son of Justice Minister Cho Mi-ae and Choo’s duties as a conflict of interest was difficult. He delayed answering the question: ‘Is it violating the law prohibiting requests for former aide to Minister Chu to call his son’s troops? Opposition lawmakers raised suspicions of preferential treatment in relation to Choo’s son’s military service, but only interpreted the conflict of interest between Minister Chu and the prosecution.
According to the response data received from the Korean Rights Commission on the 14th by Representative Seong Il-jong, Congressman Seong Il-jong said, “Although Minister Chu is a private stakeholder with his son, there is no employment relationship. specific “. According to the Korean Rights Commission, to determine a conflict of interest, it is necessary to examine whether it is a private data subject or a person related to work. As a consequence of asking the Ministry of Justice and Prosecutor’s Office to confirm the facts, the Office of the Prosecutor replied on the 10th that “there was no complaint of the case against the son of the Minister of Justice to the Ministry of Justice, nor was there any exercise of command.” The Justice Ministry did not respond to a separate opinion. The Kwon Ik-Com concluded that “judging by the opinion of the Prosecutor’s Office that the Minister of Justice did not exercise specific rights of command and supervision in the case and did not receive a separate report, it is difficult to say that the relevance of the Market Stall”.
When asked whether the act of making a phone call to the troops of Minister Chu’s son’s unit violates the Request Prohibition Law, the KFTC deferred its judgment, saying: “We must make a comprehensive judgment.” The Solicitation Prohibition Act stipulates that ‘actions that violate laws and regulations regarding matters related to military service, such as trial of military service, unit assignment, and job assignment’ are subject to illegal solicitation. The Kwonik Committee responded: “In an individual case, it is necessary to thoroughly consider whether a job-related request was made subject to fraudulent request, whether it was handled in violation of related laws and regulations in this process, and whether it is a reason for the Fraudulent Request Exception “. Kwon Ik-Com also reserved the answer, saying: “It is necessary to consider exhaustively” including the question from Representative Lee Young Kookmin Power on whether the allegations of Choo’s daughter’s application for a French visa is a violation of the French Law. Application Prohibition.
To determine the content, the Kwon Ik-Com asked the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of National Defense, “if there was a request on the extension of the vacation of the son of the Minister of Justice, selection of interpreters and allocation of troops.” The Ministry of National Defense is in a position to request an additional basis to judge that the son of the Minister of Justice did not violate the related laws and regulations and all the data related to the solicitation complaints, such as the extension of the vacation of the Minister of Justice . The KFTC added: “The reason for the request to confirm the facts to the relevant organizations was that it was unavoidable because the KFTC did not have the authority to investigate ex officio.”
Kwon Ik-wi saw that it is difficult to see Officer A, who raised the suspicion of a preferential vacation for Minister Chu’s son, as a public interest reporter. The KPO replied: “The public interest reporter is not a statutory ordinance stipulated in the law,” and replied: “A is not even the reporter ‘under the law under the authority of the KRC.” According to the laws under the jurisdiction of the Korea Rights Commission, a reporter ‘is a person who reports 284 acts subject to public interest reporting, including acts of public interest infringement and acts of corruption, to the reporting agency prescribed by law. However, it means that the ‘suspicion of preferential holidays’ is not framed in this report.
In response to the KFTC’s response, Representative Seong criticized that “the conclusion was expected from the moment we took a simple interpretation of the law.” .
Jinha yang reporter [email protected]
Subscribe to the Hankook Ilbo News Naver channel
Balance to see the world, the Hankook Ilbo Copyright © Hankookilbo
[ad_2]
