[ad_1]
[ 기사 보강 : 24일 오후 10시 55분 ]
Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol returns to the office again.
The 12th Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Deputy Judge Hong Soon-wook) accepted the stay of execution of the two-month stay of disciplinary action by Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol at 10 p.m. on the 24th, and suspended the effect of the Ministry of Justice disciplinary action against Yoon. After the court suspended the execution order for the suspension of duties issued to President Yoon on the 1st, President Yoon’s hand was also handed to him.
On that day, the court ruled that “the disciplinary action (of President Yoon) will be suspended until the 30th from the date of sentencing of the sub-case ruling.” That is, the suspension of the suspension will be ineffective until 30 days have elapsed from the sentence of the sentence of the main case that deals with the legality of the disciplinary action of President Yun. In fact, the disciplinary committee of the Ministry of Justice neutralized the two-month suspension of the sentence against Yoon.
Immediately after the court’s ruling, Yoon said, “I deeply appreciate the judgment of the judiciary” and said, “I will do my best to preserve the constitutional spirit, the rule of law, and common sense.”
It is also interpreted that the ruling on the legality of the disciplinary action that the Ministry of Justice imposed on Yoon for the judicial decision of that day was mostly passed. Before the second hearing on the same day, the court sent a questionnaire containing approximately eight points to both parties, because it included a question on whether the formation of the disciplinary committee of the Ministry of Justice was legitimate.
In the court’s ruling, Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae, the party that requested the disciplinary action from President Yoon, was cornered. The aftermath of the Blue House, which approved the disciplinary decision, is also expected to be strong.
At the end of two court battles, Yun Suk-yeol’s hand raised
On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice and President Yoon fought a tough court battle on the 22nd and 24th. Yoon’s side has argued that the disciplinary review process was illegal and that the grounds for the disciplinary action were also unfair. In particular, it has been emphasized that the two-month suspension provision is actually similar to the impeachment of President Yun, and that even if he returns after that, he has no choice but to become plant chief due to the loss of his status.
On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice emphasized that the two-month suspension of President Yoon was in accordance with the constitutional mandate of the president, and that the right of defense was guaranteed and not the disciplinary action of any public official. The position is that there are no procedural failures to guarantee the plaintiff’s right to defense because it was carried out in accordance with the principle of due process. Furthermore, it is reported that if the stay of execution is cited, it has also conveyed concern to the court that a constitutional issue may arise beyond the authority and responsibilities of the president.
Between them, the question of the acute conflict between the two parties was whether President Yoon’s provision was “contrary to the public welfare.” Yoon’s position is that it is for the public welfare that the current state, which has undermined the independence and rule of law of the prosecution, is quickly restored. On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice argued that the investigations related to the case of interception of channel A and the propensity analysis document of the Court of Justice, which were the basis of Yoon’s disciplinary action, were requested by the Prosecutor’s Office . come.
