Four disciplinary members who will decide the disciplinary action of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol at the Prosecutor’s Discipline Committee to be held again on the 15th. From the left of the photo, Han-jung Jeong, a professor at the Graduate School of Law at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, who is acting as an official representative of the disciplinary committee, Professor Anjin, a law school professor at Chonnam National University, Yong-gu Lee, Vice Minister of Justice, and Seong-shik Shin, head of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office. [연합뉴스]
– While the Prosecutor’s Disciplinary Committee against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol is scheduled on the 15th, it is observed that the level of disciplinary action will be determined as’honesty’. According to the Prosecutor’s Discipline Act, suspension is possible for one to six months, but the prospect that it will be decided in two to three months is gaining convincing power in the legal profession. It is believed that the passports, such as the Blue House and Minister Chu, were intended to aground a major investigation targeting the current regime, and to capture two rabbits that also guarantee the office of the prosecutor general.
On the 14th, inside the prosecutor’s office, Han-jung Jeong, a professor at the Han-Jung Graduate School of Law at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, said, ‘6 months honesty.’ There is a prospect that there is a high possibility of giving an opinion of’withdraw later’. The Blue House even talks about insisting on three months of honesty against President Yoon, but the fact is not confirmed. Park Ju-min and Seol-hoon, as well as Democratic Party lawmakers, are predicting that they will be decided one after another as’honesty’ in their passports. Observations of the ruling party lawmakers’ remarks, “Isn’t it possible to create public opinion by setting the direction to be honest?” come from the legal and political circles.
“Most of the investigations of the current regime will be stranded”
– Disciplinary action is possible if only 3 of the 4 disciplinary members participating in the disciplinary committee approve. Opinions on the disciplinary level can be divided. The disciplinary level is divided into five categories: dismissal, dismissal, suspension, cuts, and reprimands. If the disciplinary members disagree, an agreement is usually attempted, but if each member adheres to his or her opinion until the end, the prosecutor’s disciplinary law is followed. Article 18 of the Prosecutor’s Disciplinary Act states that’when opinions are divided when a disciplinary decision is made and the majority of the members present, the number of opinions that are most unfavorable to the suspects of disciplinary action up to the majority of members present is in turn added to the most favorable opinion It is decided to follow. If the above prosecution’s internal expectations are correct, there is a high possibility that ‘2~3 months of honesty’ will be decided according to the Prosecutor’s Discipline Act.
If two to three months of suspension are passed, it could hurt investigations targeting the current regime, such as the Wolseong nuclear power plant case and the Blue House Ulsan mayor’s election intervention case. With two to three months of honesty, President Yoon’s advance into politics after tying his hands and feet can be prevented by the so-called’Prohibition of Running for President Yoon Seok-yeol’. On the 11th, Choi Gang-wook, the head of the Open Democratic Party, proposed the’Amendment to the Prosecutors’ Office Act and Court Organization Act’ that requires incumbent prosecutors and judges to resign one year before running as candidates for public office elections. Representative Choi heard that the former Gwangju District Court Chief Judge Jang Dong-hyuk, who was in charge of Chun Doo-hwan’s 5·18 criminal case trial, was nominated by the Future Integration Party (the predecessor of the people’s power), but in politics, it is considered as the next president. Criticism has been raised that it is the law aimed at Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol.
If 6 months of suspension is decided, the effect is expected to be the same as dismissal. Yun’s term in office is until next July. It is said that the job is suspended until June next year for six months of suspension, but it seems that he will withdraw from his position immediately due to dismissal, in effect, withdrawing from the post of general president.
Criticism of undermining the term system of president “burden”
–
![Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. [연합뉴스]](https://i0.wp.com/pds.joins.com/news/component/htmlphoto_mmdata/202012/14/84d9772c-8523-422c-aace-1e010436a606.jpg?w=900&ssl=1)
–
Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. [연합뉴스]
– From a passport standpoint, there is less risk of being suspended rather than imposed. A decision to dismiss may face criticism that “it undermined the prosecutor general’s term of office and political independence.” Disciplinary committee members are also burdened with such criticism. Professor Jeong Han-jung said, “I know there are a lot of bad comments.”
In particular, when a decision to dismiss is made, it is also necessary to consider that there is a relatively high probability of a decision to suspend execution by the court compared to the case of suspension. General Yoon announced that no matter how the disciplinary level was, it would file a main lawsuit with the application for suspension of execution. The lawsuit filed by President Yoon will be taken over by the Seoul Administrative Court. A judge on the front line who has worked in the Seoul Administrative Court said, “Since dismissal is a matter of the right to live of the disciplinary suspect, there are many cases of citing the request for suspension of execution and raising the hand of the disciplinary suspect in the main lawsuit.” The Ministry of Justice tasted the humiliation of the Seoul Administrative Court on the 1st of last month for Justice Minister Chu Miae to suspend the effect of the order to suspend the execution of his duties against Yoon on the 24th of last month. At the time, the court stated in its decision that “a deviation or abuse of the minister’s discretionary power is subject to judicial review”.
Reporter Jung Yujin [email protected]
–
