Today’s National Delegation of Judges Meeting will be treated as the order of business for the late judge’s document

Cho Mi-ae (left), Minister of Justice and Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol.

The Representative Meeting of the National Magistracy, in charge of issuing opinions and making recommendations on the main issues of judicial independence and judicial administration, will be held at 10 am on the 7th. The legal profession is awaiting whether the judge’s document prepared by the prosecution in this delegation will be treated as an agenda.

The meeting of the delegation of the Judiciary, conducted by video due to the spread of the new coronavirus infection (Corona 19), is held when the majority of the 125 representatives of each court are present. Currently, there are eight agendas, including: ▶ Release of the statement of the judgment ▶ One-time trial ▶ Improving the qualifications of judges ▶ Planning the judge system ▶ Improving the Mediation Committee ▶ Support for judges involved in judicial administration ▶ Electronic criminal lawsuits ▶ Requirement of the expansion of physical and human facilities dedicated to the appointment of judges. The allegations of the judge’s inspection that Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae raised as a reason for President Yoon’s disciplinary action were not selected as the agenda. Minister Chu suggested that the former Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Investigation and Information Policy identified allegations of corruption in the family of former Justice Minister Cho Kook and the disposition and origin of the judiciary in important cases such as Gukjeong Nongdan, he elaborated. A document and reported it to Yun.

The debate on whether to propose an agenda began with the brief from Judge Jang Chang-guk (53rd, 32nd Judicial Research and Training Institute), the chief judge of the Jeju District Court. On the 27th of last month, Judge Jang, a member of the delegation of the judiciary, posted a message on the court’s internal network titled “I propose the following resolution as an agenda for the court’s response to the prosecution’s actions.” He called for a resolution on the agenda, saying: “Why would a prosecutor who earns a high salary convert a judge’s documents into a national tax? If the court is tolerated, the prosecution and other state agencies will also collect personal information from the judge.” . However, there was not much support from fellow judges and the requirements of the agenda were not met.

However, the possibility of discussion is open. Article 6, paragraph 3 of the statute of the National Assembly of Representatives of the Judges, establishes that a new agenda may be proposed if the representative of the judges obtains the consent of 9 members except himself on the day of the meeting.

Although some of the titular judges have proposed to discuss the recently controversial issue of the ‘Analysis of Major Cases’ of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, it should be noted if the discussion will take place at the Representative Meeting of National Judges that will be held online on the 7th. photo shows the central district court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 6th. [뉴스1]

Before the meeting, there are voices that the agenda should be presented to the internal network of judges. Judge Lee Bong-soo (47/31), Chief Judge of the Changwon District Court, said on the 3rd that “private information such as religion, origin, family relationship and specific investigative group of the judge has no nothing to do with the maintenance of the prosecution. ” Revealed. Kim Seong-hun (48th and 28th terms), deputy judge of the Seoul Central District Court, who is also a member of the delegation, said on the 4th: “There is a high risk that the judge’s subsequent investigation document will violate the independence of judgment “. It doesn’t work and I think it serves the highest public interest.

On the other hand, prudence still remains. In particular, there are voices of concern that the judiciary may be used politically in a conflict between the prosecution and the government. Gwangju District Court Judge Cha Ki-Hyun (43rd Bar Exam, Second Term) said the fourth, “Wouldn’t it be fine to discuss it calmly after the politically sensitive period has passed?” He said: “It’s what the judges never want to be misinterpreted as having some kind of break before the judges meeting. It won’t.” The sole judge of the Supreme Court (Judge Investigation Officer) also agreed that it would be inappropriate for the meeting of representatives of the judges to issue an official opinion on the agenda of the judge’s suspicion of inspection. A chief judge said: “If the prosecution actually used the ‘list of judicial officers’ obtained by the prosecution during the investigation of former Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae, this is a big problem, but for now, it seems we must be cautious until the facts are revealed. ”

If an agenda related to the judge’s documents is presented at the meeting and conclusions are drawn, there is a possibility that it will affect the Yun disciplinary committee that will be held on the 10th. An official from the Judges Delegation said: “The National judges are discussing with local judges whether or not the agenda is proposed “and he said,” Please refrain from making predictions as long as the agenda can only be confirmed on the day of the regular meeting. ”

Reporter Lee Ga-young [email protected]