Track Brakes on Autumn My Way … ‘Ignore Purpose of Attorney General’s Term System’

Acceptance of the “Hard to Recover” Court Claim

“In reality, the dismissal … recognized the urgent need to seek suspension of effectiveness”

“Severe defects such as suspension of work and request for investigation”

The disciplinary process, scheduled for the 4th, was also engulfed in furor when the court announced the decision to suspend the suspension of duties against Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol. The headwind of public opinion on the Minister of Justice, Choo Mi-ae, who ordered the total suspension of work while the disciplinary level has not been determined, became inevitable. The oversight committee of the Ministry of Justice also agreed that the suspension of duties against President Yoon, as well as the disciplinary complaints and requests for investigation, was unfair, and Minister Chu was rushed to pardon. As the burden on the Prosecutor’s Office and the Disciplinary Commission of the Ministry of Justice has grown even more, it is analyzed that disciplinary measures at the level of dismissal or dismissal may not be raised by the intention of Minister Chu.

On the 1st, the 4th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Mi-yeon Cho) announced that it had partially subpoenaed a request for stay of execution against President Yoon. The term is of up to 30 days from the sentence of the case of annulment of the suspension of functions as the main sentence. President Yoon requested that the effect of the stay of execution be suspended until the first trial decision on the main bill is confirmed. It is an assessment that practically all of them are summoned with the intention of requesting the suspension of execution once they attend the appeal hearing.

The court accepted the claim that the suspension of duty would cause “recovery difficulties” for Yun. With this arrangement, Yun can no longer fulfill his duties as attorney general, but the intention is that even if Yun wins the main lawsuit, he will not be able to recover.

The court saw that there was also an “ urgent need ” to prevent the suspension from working. The court explained that “the effect of resolving this case actually has the same effect as severe disciplinary action such as termination and honesty,” and explained that “the urgent need to suspend the effect is recognized.”

The court also refused to accept the Justice Department’s claim that there was no “ benefit of the lawsuit (need for the lawsuit) ” because the disciplinary committee was held sooner or later. The court noted that “if it is difficult to predict when the disciplinary process will finally end and if the need for a stay of execution is denied for that reason, the legal status of President Yun is put in an uncertain state.”

The court did not even admit that there is a concern from the Ministry of Justice that there is concern that Yoon could have a serious impact on public welfare if he takes over again. In this regard, the Ministry of Justice argued that if the suspension of functions ceases, the personal rights of the Minister of Justice will be restricted. However, in light of the relationship between the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, the court found that the exercise of discretion against the Attorney General was carried out under exceptionally strict requirements.

The court also noted that this suspension of functions “ignored” the purpose of the statute that guaranteed the attorney general’s mandate to ensure the independence and political neutrality of the prosecution. This is because if this arrangement continues, you will be barred from office until the end of President Yoon’s term of office, virtually resulting in impeachment.

The court also ruled that Yoon’s suspension from office would harm the public welfare. The reason is that there is concern that there is a risk of disruption and confusion in the functioning of the entire prosecution service and the performance of prosecutors due to the suspension of duties. However, the court did not issue a judgment based on disciplinary action as “judge’s papers.” The court considered that the illegality of the grounds for the disciplinary action should be addressed in the main case.

The supervisory commission of the Ministry of Justice also raised the hand of President Yoon. The inspection committee decided that the suspension of President Yun’s duties, as well as the request for disciplinary action and investigation was inappropriate. It was believed that there was a procedural flaw in the process of disposition of the Ministry of Justice of suspension of functions against President Yoon. The decision of the inspection committee was decided unanimously.

The inspection committee saw that the problem was that the Ministry of Justice did not notify the reasons for the disciplinary complaint against Yun and did not give him the opportunity to clarify this. This reflects President Yoon’s position that “due process was not implemented in the process of judicial investigations and disciplinary complaints.”

The Ministry of Justice refuted the inspection recommendation. The Justice Ministry said in a message sent to journalists shortly after the Inspector General’s announcement that “we tried to provide several opportunities for clarification.” He said: “I will fully refer to the recommendations of the oversight committee.” The resolution of the inspection has no practical effect.

President Yoon’s side gained a justification by successively overcoming the injustice of the suspension and the problems of inspection and disciplinary procedures. Therefore, in the future, it is expected that every effort will be made to enforce the illegality and inadmissibility of the grounds for disciplinary action. In a statement distributed immediately after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the day, Yoon argued that “the request for disciplinary action and investigation based on unsubstantial charges and illegal inspection should be canceled.” / Reporter Jo Kwon-hyeong [email protected]

< 저작권자 ⓒ 서울경제, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지 >