Yoon Seok-yeol’s life and death ‘judge papers’ …

Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol visited the Gwangju Regional Senior Prosecutor’s Office in February and answered questions from journalists before entering the government building. [뉴스1]

The so-called ‘judge’s document’ is drawing attention as a key issue in Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol’s suspension lawsuit. The passport was expressed as “Illegal Inspection” (Minister Choo Mi-ae) and “Challenge to the rule of law” (Representative Nak-Yeon Lee) ‘and pushed General Yun. On the other hand, the prosecutor Sung Sang-wook, who wrote the document, denied that it was “a material created with reference to data disclosed to the media to maintain public ownership.” The first line prosecutors claim that “illegal production of passports using the term” inspection “.

Yoon’s lawyers also believe that the judges’ judgment on this “judge’s document” in the case of Yoon’s exclusion from duties in the future will determine the fate of President Yun. This is because, unlike other charges brought by Minister Chu to President Yoon, this part is due to the remaining objective data called documents.

Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae will address the Justice Ministry building on the 25th. The previous day, Minister Chu requested disciplinary action against Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol and ordered a “stay of execution of the duty”. Reporter Kim Sang-sun

Particularly on this issue, the content of “Including the list of judges in year 16 of the Ministry of Justice” for Judge A of the former President of the Supreme Court of Justice, which appeared in the judge’s document, is key. The list of “muddy judges”, also known as the black list of judges, is unknown except for the few prosecutors who investigated former Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae and the author of the court documents at the time. Based on these data, the Ministry of Justice argues that “the documents for the illegal inspections of the judges contain personal information that is not public data.”

The ‘Mul-Yagi Judge List’ is a document created by the court administration office as the former Chief Justice of the Yang Supreme Court (2013-2017) to refer to the staff of judges. At the time, there was controversy as it included judges who were classified as liberal, although there were no antics. The prosecution prosecuted the former head of the Supreme Court, Yang, for abuse of office and said that the court administration made a list of inquisitive stories to control some judges and sanctioned them.

The prosecution’s investigation team paid particular attention to security while securing the documents of the inquisitive judge. This is because if a document is disclosed, it is not known how or when the judges named in the document will be sanctioned. The judicial administration, which had brought this document to the prosecution, also demanded security from the prosecutors.

Former Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae, charged with “suspected abuse of the power of the judicial administration”, attends the 100th trial held last month at the Seoul Central District Court. [연합뉴스]

This is why the regular judges react sensitively to the sentence “Including the list of judges in year 16 of the administration” included in the “Judge Document”. A plurality of incumbent judges said: “From the moment the prosecutors investigated the two former chiefs of the Supreme Court, there was great concern that the judge’s data obtained through the seizure and registration would be used for other purposes.”

Due to the concerns of these judges, the investigation team, former Supreme Court Chief Yang, said it was a misunderstanding. Prosecutor B, who was in charge of the ‘Judge Lodo’ part of the former Yang Supreme Court investigation, said: “We are well aware of the importance of this document. investigation and we are storing every document encrypted. ” The prosecutor added: “We have not received any investigation from the great swordsman about the alleged judge.” Another prosecutor C from Yang Seung-tae’s investigation team also said, “Except for a very small number of prosecutors like Prosecutor A, there are no members of the investigation team who have seen the list of judges in question.”

If so, how is this “Mudible Judge” data included in the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office document? The first person to raise this issue was a lawyer aunt, a lawyer for former Supreme Court Chief Yang.

Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol leaves his job at the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office on the 24th (photo on the right). Earlier, Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae revealed the policy of requesting disciplinary action against President Yoon and exclusion from duties in the press room of the Seoul Senior Prosecutor’s Office (pictured left) .[연합뉴스]

Last year, the lawyer raised the question that the court of the former Chief Justice of Yang had included an inquisitive judge, that is, Justice A, a victim of the former Chief Justice of Yang. This was the content confirmed through the investigation records read and copied by the prosecution. Consequently, the judge, attorney Lee, and two prosecutors from the prosecution team discussed the matter in the settlement room and concluded that there was no problem. Prosecutors on the trial team, both former chiefs of the Supreme Court, also learned that Judge A was included in the interrogating judge.

In February this year, Sung’s chief prosecutor’s prosecutor, who drafted the document, made the same argument regarding this ‘Judge Mulyagi’. In 2019, lawyers for former Chief Justice Yang brought the facts to court and it is claimed that what the trial team knows was recorded as a reminder. However, there is no explanation as to how the castle prosecutor, who was in the grand prosecutor’s office, learned what was discussed in the judge’s settlement room. This part must be revealed through investigation. This is because both Prosecutor Sung Sung and the investigation team of the former Supreme Court Chief Justice demanded or insisted that the judges have never been asked for information on the matter.

In the Office of the Information and Investigation Policy Officer of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, who was working at the time that Prosecutor Sung was drafting the document, Prosecutor D, who is in charge of the trial of former Supreme Court Chief Yang, also is on duty. Prosecutor D may have relayed what he found out during the trial to the head of the castle. Prosecutor D said, “It is difficult to talk about the matter under investigation” to JoongAng Ilbo’s question.

Woo Byeong-woo, former head of the Blue House, accused of illegal inspection, attends an appeal trial held at the Seoul High Court on the 12th. [뉴스1]

A lawyer who was a chief judge said: “There is a side where it becomes difficult to establish an illegal inspection proposed by the Ministry of Justice unless the content of ‘Judge Mul-Yagi’ is used in the Judge’s documents and not use the research data. ” It is illegal to use the research data for other purposes. However, it is difficult to consider it as a temple if the aforementioned content was delivered in court.

Looking at the ruling on the first illegal inspection trial by former Min Jeong-woo Woo Byung-woo in 2018, illegal inspections are established when ▶ for illegal purposes ▶ with the intention of causing disadvantage to certain people ▶ consistently and exceptional. With this rule applied, former Chief Woo was cleared of some of the illegal inspection charges.

Reporter Park Tae-in [email protected]