[ad_1]
 |
|
| ▲ Prosecutor Ok-hyung Lee, a lawyer for the Ministry of Justice, enters the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, where the second interrogation of stay of execution of stay of stay of indictment against Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol on the afternoon of the 24th. | |
| Ⓒ Yonhap News |
See related photos |
 |
|
| ▲ Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol’s attorney Lee Seok-woong enters the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, where the second interrogation of stay of suspension of stay of stay against Yoon takes place on the afternoon of the 24th. | |
| Ⓒ Yonhap News |
See related photos |
[2신 : 24일 오후 5시 13분 ]
The interrogation ended in 1 hour and 15 minutes, … Both sides “the results are expected to come out today”
4:15 pm on this day. Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol’s second interrogation ended in 1 hour and 15 minutes. Now, the final judgment was left to the judge.
On that day, attorneys for both sides predicted that the Seoul Administrative Court’s decision on the request for suspension of execution of President Yoon’s two-month suspension of disciplinary action will be taken earlier today. If the court accepts Mr. Yun’s request, Mr. Yoon can immediately return to work and the disciplinary action will be suspended until the outcome of the main complaint is reached. Conversely, if Yun’s application is rejected, Yoon’s current status, which has been suspended for two months, remains intact and he can only return to the post of attorney general after two months.
After the trial, attorney Ok-hyung Lee from the Ministry of Justice said, “The judge said he would make a final decision today” and said, “I think the court has already made a decision.”
The lawyer said that in the trial that day, the main mention was whether the disposition against President Yoon was against the public welfare. Lee said, “President Yoon’s side insisted on the rule of law and the independence of the prosecutor’s office (in relation to public welfare). It is clear that investigators will be hampered if Yun returns to office, and they will be he has said in court that this is not the most important issue. “
Lee said that the content of the questionnaire previously sent to both parties by the court was not further handled in court.
Yoon Seok-yeol’s lawyer Lee Seok-woong said, “There is no significant difference in the trial today. Both parties have sufficiently expressed their opinions on the matter of the court questions.” We have mentioned a lot about the problem, but we also specifically mention the arguments that we have presented so far. “
Regarding the ‘irreparable damages’, which was the fundamental reason why President Yoon filed an administrative lawsuit, the lawyer said: “It is necessary to obtain the judgment of the court, but we or the defendant made a specific argument in court.” . “I hope for a quick decision, as I closed the questioning and said it would be decided as soon as possible, and as soon as possible today.”
[1신 : 24일 오후 3시 24분]
Yoon Seok-yeol’s second interrogation begins … 8 questions left by the judge are key
Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol and the Ministry of Justice met again in court after two days. At 3 pm on the 24th, the Seoul Administrative Court held a second interrogation date on the case of the suspension of execution of the two-month suspension of disciplinary action by President Yoon.
Previously, the Seoul Administrative Court had a deadline for the first questioning on President Yoon’s case on the 22nd. At that time, the court announced that it would not close the hearing on the same day, but sent additional inquiries to both parties, and which would resume at 3pm on the 24th based on related details.
Before the day’s trial, if the content of the questionnaire released by the Ministry of Justice and President Yoon is summarized, the court’s requirements are summarized in eight. ▲ To what extent is a hearing necessary for the main issue ▲ If the rule of law or the general interests of society are included in the content of ‘difficult to recover damages’ claimed by the applicant and the defendant, ▲ What are the characteristics specific to public welfare, ▲ Composition of the disciplinary committee Is it legitimate? ▲ What is the purpose of the analysis document by the Judiciary? ▲ Explain the reasons for interfering with Channel A’s investigation and interfere with the investigation ▲ Explain in detail the individual reasons for the disciplinary action (in addition to President Yoon) It will be revealed whether the initiation can be carried out without the approval of the President.
It is also expected that the jurisprudence battle that will take place in the trial will develop based on the previous questionnaire. Both parties mentioned how they prepared the response to the court questionnaire and the direction of the trial before entering the trial that day.
At 2:41 pm, President Yoon’s lawyer Lee Seok-woong, who first came to the Seoul Administrative Court, responded to the court questionnaire, saying, “What are irreparable damages, what are the urgent needs (for stay enforcement), public welfare? He said: “There are many specific questions from the Court of Justice regarding procedural or substantive matters, so we answered them. We wrote about 3 written documents. “” I paid for it and the other person did it, “he explained.
Lee added, “We know that (the court) will hear within the scope necessary to decide this case, as the degree of possibility of winning the original bill (the legality of President Yoon’s discipline) can also be included in the issue of this audience. “
Lawyer Ok-hyung Lee from the Ministry of Justice arrived in front of the Seoul Administrative Court at 2:53 pm. Regarding the questionnaire for the judiciary, lawyer Ok-hyung Lee said, “I asked if there was a material or procedural defect (to the discipline of President Yoon), so I replied that there was no defect. He explained.
Regarding the main case, he said, “because our position is basically stay of execution, the requirements for stay of execution are subject to judicial review and the main proposal is subject to judicial review in the area necessary to determine the requirements for stay of execution “. The execution itself is so important that the subject of judicial review can be expanded.
