In politics, the ruling party is leading the confrontation, emphasizing the fact that Yoon is suing President Moon, but there is no direct stance against President Moon, who has actually granted disciplinary action.
Even in the process of legal proceedings in the future, it is a general prospect both inside and outside the legal community that Yun will not turn into an offensive against President Moon.
According to the legal community on the 18th, President Yun filed a lawsuit against the Minister of Justice in the afternoon of the previous day (17th) against the Minister of Justice and filed a lawsuit for cancellation of disciplinary action and suspension of execution of disciplinary action. The Minister of Justice became the defendant in accordance with Article 16, Paragraph 2 of the National Public Service Act. The relevant provisions stipulate that in the case of the presidential disposition when filing an administrative lawsuit against the disciplinary disposition, Lee Wan-gyu, attorney on the president’s side, said on the previous day, “This is a lawsuit against the President’s disposition, so the lawsuit against the President is correct.” The basic position is to respond to the damage of the Constitution and the rule of law according to the procedures set by the Constitution and laws.” The main contents of the disciplinary disposition cancellation lawsuit are the illegality of the disciplinary deliberation procedure and the reasons for disciplinary action, and the suspension of execution. In the application, emphasis was placed on the fact that two months of suspension is’irreparable damage’ and that there is an urgent need to suspend the effect of disciplinary action due to investigation of important cases.
It is not the purpose of complaining to President Moon, who is the authority of appointment, but the illegality and injustice of the discipline itself by the Ministry of Justice.
Yoon said in an audit of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office last October, “When the president, who is the nominee, asked to resign from the Democratic Party after the general election, he also conveyed through an appropriate messenger,’Do not be shaken, keep your term of office and fulfill your duties.'”
He held the confidence of President Moon for not withdrawing from the post of general president, and if President Moon had conveyed his intention of distrust through “political determination,” he would have accepted it.However, the fact that legal action was inevitable due to disciplinary proceedings as illegal and unfair measures now. This is the position of President Yoon.
Attorney Sohn Kyung-sik on the side of General Yoon said in a phone call that day, “This is not an objection to the disciplinary proceedings because he has committed a crime (to General Yoon), and it is not a protest.” “We take control of the prosecution by expelling people using the guilt of discipline. It is unacceptable to do.”
Even in the legal profession, it has been suggested that the lawsuit against President Yoon’s objection would mean not leaving a’bad precedent’.
An attorney who was a former prosecutor said, “Rather than recovering personal honor, the purpose of not leaving a’history’ of two months of suspension by placing a ridiculous name on the prosecutor general is the greatest.” “The prosecutor general’s tenure system is the president’s arbitrary exercise of personnel rights. “It was because it was a national agreement to protect the prosecution from political neutrality and the fairness of the investigation.”
Accordingly, it seems unlikely that Yoon would directly hit President Moon in connection with this discipline. Even among prosecutors, rather than asking President Moon’s responsibility for relinquishing the disciplinary action against President Yoon, he criticized the prosecution’s internal achievements, including the prosecution’s procedural issues and the contents of the disciplinary resolution summary of the prosecutor’s disciplinary committee. Heading.
(Seoul = News 1)
Copyright by dongA.com All rights reserved.
—
–
