Ministry of Justice “Minister Kim Hak’s withdrawal was also possible” vs. “Denying the Law and Riding Water”

“The Minister of Justice has ex officio the authority to prohibit departure. (The recent controversy over illegal departure) is only a secondary controversy.”

On the 16th, the Ministry of Justice responded to the controversy about the’Illegal Departure Prohibition’ of Kim Hak-eui, former Vice Minister of Justice, “At the time, Minister Park Sang-sang was able to sufficiently ban Kim from leaving the country without requesting the prosecution.” It is pointless to question the suspicion of a violation.” In response to the Ministry of Justice’s position that if there is no problem with the conclusion, the process is secondary, there is a backlash from inside and outside the prosecution that it is “denying procedural justice”.

●“If it had not been requested, it would have been under the authority of the minister”

On the 16th, the Ministry of Justice said, “(Deputy Minister Kim) Controversy over some procedures of the emergency departure ban will have an impact on the legality of the departure ban itself, considering the Minister of Justice’s ex officio deportation authority. It is a secondary controversy that cannot be done.” Since the Minister of Justice has finally approved the ban on departure from former Vice Minister Kim, it is not necessary to discuss disputes over procedures that occurred during the withdrawal process. The Ministry of Justice said, “There was actually no request for an investigative agency in 2013, but there is a precedent that the Minister ex officio banned departure.” The Minister of Justice may ban those who should not leave the country for criminal investigation for up to one month. The investigative agency may directly apply for an emergency ban on departure only to felony criminals who may be sentenced to three years or more in prison and imprisonment. In the case of emergency withdrawal, only the suspect can apply, so there was no legal means to withdraw the withdrawal of former Vice Minister Kim, who was not the suspect at the time, except for the ex officio of the Minister of Justice. However, the withdrawal for former Vice Minister Kim at the time was conducted by applying for an emergency withdrawal from the prosecutor of the Past Photographic Investigation Group of Supreme Prosecutor Gyu-won Lee, who did not meet the requirements and procedures. At the time, the Prosecutors’ Office of Justice reviewed a plan for the Minister of Justice Park Sang-sang to make an ex officio withdrawal to former Vice Minister Kim, but did not adopt it. The Ministry of Justice did not clarify the point that the prosecutor had violated the enforcement ordinance of the Immigration Control Act, such as filing a request for an emergency ban on departure that read “Lee Gyu-won as the Seoul East District Prosecutor’s Office,” without the approval of the Seoul East District Prosecutor’s Office. The Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act stipulates that’the head of an investigating agency seeking an emergency ban on departure must send documents to an immigration official’. The Ministry of Justice clarified that the’Illegal Inspection Suspicion’ that officials in the Immigration Division had illegally inquired Kim’s immigration records three days before the scheduled departure date, saying, “In order to respond to the National Assembly and the media, and to perform duties, we have inquired whether or not former Vice Minister Kim left the country.” did.

Read Also:  Responsible investment funds raise $ 1 trillion for the first time in history

●“Ministry of Justice denies the rule of law and waters”

Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae criticized the prosecution’s investigation on the suspicion of illegal departure from the country through Facebook. Minister Chu said, “I feel like I am trying to carry out a typical’theatrical investigation’ that raises the inevitability of investigation after forming social interest and attention, as if it was a case of great illegality and organizational misconduct, after catching a straw and driving public opinion through the media first.” Said. Han-joong Jeong, a member of the Ministry of Justice’s Past History Committee, insisted on Facebook, “I expected retaliation, but the timing was earlier than I thought, and I was surprised that the target case was the banning of Kim Hak, the prosecution,”.

Inside the prosecution, there are criticisms that “the Ministry of Justice denies’lawism’. One chief prosecutor said, “The insistence of the Ministry of Justice is no different from Woo-gi, saying,’There is no problem because the prosecutor has the right to emergency arrest after arresting a person without going through due process.’ Another supervisory prosecutor said, “It is the core of the suspicion that this prosecutor, who did not have the authority to investigate, created a’fake internal investigation number’ and applied for an emergency departure ban,” he said. “By the way, the Ministry of Justice broke the core and discussed’the minister’s ex officio deportation authority. “I’m doing’riding the water’ while doing it.”

Reporter Godo Yea [email protected]

Close window

You recommended the articleMinistry of Justice “Minister Kim Hak’s withdrawal was also possible” vs. “Denying the Law and Riding Water”Best Recommended News

Read Also:  “Are we not people?” - Motorists are outraged by the KIA decision to ban the sale of Optima by taxi
Share on facebook
Share on pinterest
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.