[ad_1]
 |
|
| ▲ Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol Starts Work “Temporary Suspension of Business Suspension Effect” Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol, who was unable to go to work due to the decision to suspend the job of Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae, is answering questions from journalists while addressing the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office in Seocho-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul. On the 24th of last month, President Yoon was unable to go to work due to a suspension order from Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae, and he went to the office as soon as the decision was issued to temporarily suspend the effect of the suspension order of Seoul Administrative Court. | |
| Ⓒ Yonhap News |
See related photos |
[기사 보강 : 1일 오후 6시20분]
While the Seoul Administrative Court cited a request for suspension of the suspension of duties on the afternoon of the 1st, while the side of Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol took advantageous notice, the disciplinary committee of the Ministry of Justice is calling the Attention. The Ministry of Justice accepted President Yoon’s request and postponed the disciplinary committee, originally scheduled for the 2nd to the 4th, two days later. Yoon went to the grand prosecutor’s office in 40 minutes immediately after the court’s decision, but depending on the decision of the disciplinary committee, it can be difficult to return to work.
On Day 1, the lawyers from Yoon’s side requested three witnesses. Among the reasons for the disciplinary action put forward by Minister Chu are the people who will defend the allegations of interference in the inspection and investigation of the Canal A case, delivering suspicious documents to the prosecution and the judge’s inspection, which are key issues.
General Yoon’s side is expected to bring out flaws in the prosecution procedures of the Ministry of Justice by naming Ryu-hyuk, an inspector from the Ministry of Justice as a witness.
Prosecutor Ryu is the direct supervisor of Prosecutor Park Eun-jung, who was in charge of pursuing the disciplinary action of President Yoon. It is also the party. It is known that Inspector Ryu also attended the oversight committee, which concluded that the exclusion from work, the disciplinary request and the investigation request were inappropriate and explained the relevant circumstances.
Most of those who have posted ‘disciplinary injustice’
Regarding the allegation of the presumed inspection document of the judge, who became the trigger for this situation, the head of the investigation and information office of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, which is the document-writing department, requested a witness. On November 26, Sohn was named in the statement of 27 Supreme Swordsman mid-bosses who said the Justice Ministry’s action against Yun was “illegal and unfair.”
Sohn was appointed to the position on February 3 of last year (2019). At that time, the prosecutor Seong Sang-wook, head of the Uijeongbu District Prosecutor’s Office, Goyang District Prosecutor’s Office, as the Supreme Prosecutor’s Investigation Information Office 2, drafted the related document on February 26 of the same year. On November 25, the Public Prosecutor published a rebuttal on the internal network of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, stating that it was an act within the scope of his functions and that it was not an illegal document.
In the case of the complaints related to the Channel A case, Park Young-jin, who was in charge of the investigation, was appointed as the chief prosecutor for the first detective at the time. On the 26th, District Attorney Park also wrote an article criticizing Yoon’s request for disciplinary action. In his post at the time, he said: “I never felt like the president was biased towards one side of the command,” he said. “The claim that he was improperly involved to cover his entourage was established by policy and independently investigated by the investigation team (Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office). It is only a framework presented as the basis of.”
On the other hand, President Yoon’s side requested a change in the disciplinary deliberation date because the Ministry of Justice ▲ request for access to disciplinary files, etc. ▲ disciplinary request and approval document ▲ list of disciplinary committee, etc. In response, the Justice Ministry said: “In order to guarantee sufficient procedural rights and defense rights, the Attorney General’s request was accepted, and the disciplinary commission of the Prosecutor’s Office decided to postpone this Friday (December 4).”
