Autumn-Yoon, Intense Argument Process... Now Only the Trial Results Remain (Comprehensive Report 2)

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae and Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl (right)
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The hearing on the injunction request filed by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol against Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae concluded after about an hour. In court, a heated debate took place over the legality of the suspension of the Prosecutor General's duties and the necessity of suspending its effect.

The Administrative Court of Seoul, Administrative Division 4 (Presiding Judge Mi-yeon Jo) finished the hearing on Yoon's request to suspend his duties at around 12:10 PM on the 30th. After hearing both sides, the court plans to review the submitted materials and make a final decision on whether to grant the injunction. If the court determines that the suspension order would cause Yoon 'irreparable harm,' it is likely to accept his request. The result may be announced as early as late afternoon on the same day.

The hearing was held behind closed doors starting at 11 AM. It is reported that the focus was on whether the decision to suspend duties was procedurally legitimate. Additionally, there was a dispute over whether the collection of information on the main trial panel regarding six allegations against Yoon, including misconduct, constituted 'illegal surveillance.'

The hearing on the suspension of the enforcement of the job suspension order against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol was held on the 30th at the Seoul Administrative Court. On this day, Yoon's legal representatives, lawyers Lee Wan-gyu (left) and Lee Seok-woong (center), are entering the court. Photo by Moon Ho-nam munonam@

Yoon’s Side: "Irreparable Harm"

Yoon did not appear in court that day. Instead, his legal representatives, lawyers Wan-gyu Lee (Law Firm Dongin) and Seok-woong Lee (Law Firm Seowoo), attended. After the hearing, Yoon’s side stated, "We sufficiently explained the reasons why the suspension order should be halted," adding, "We explained to the court that this issue causes irreparable harm not only to Yoon personally but also to the public interest."

Regarding the court surveillance documents, Yoon’s side argued, "From the prosecutors’ standpoint, who must undergo court trials, understanding judges’ trial management styles is part of litigation work." They added, "The documents were not accumulated or managed with the intent to continuously monitor judges, and since they were unusually created for reference in February this year and then discarded, it is difficult to call this surveillance."

Yoon’s side expressed concern, saying, "This is not just about suspending the duties of one Prosecutor General but also suspending the duties of prosecutors investigating powerful social figures," and warned, "A signal that the Prosecutor General will be dismissed will make further investigations impossible or extremely difficult." They further appealed, "If we cannot prevent the framing and ousting of the Prosecutor General who is investigating regime corruption, democracy and the rule of law cannot be said to be alive," urging the court to make a historically wise judgment.

The hearing on the suspension of the enforcement of the job suspension order against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol was held on the 30th at the Seoul Administrative Court. On this day, lawyer Lee Ok-hyung, the legal representative of Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae, is entering the court.
Photo by Moon Ho-nam munonam@

Minister Choo’s Side: "No Harm to Yoon Seok-yeol"

On the respondent side, lawyer Ok-hyung Lee (Law Firm Gonggam) appeared. After the hearing, Lee told reporters, "The arguments were intense," but pointed out, "The applicant (Yoon) emphasized parts that are not subject to the court’s judgment on the injunction request, such as the illegality of the disciplinary action." He argued, "Yoon has no irreparable harm caused by the suspension of his duties," and insisted, "The request should be dismissed."

Regarding the court surveillance documents, he explained, "It was a clear illegal act and the means were inappropriate," and said, "We requested the court to verify when Prosecutor General Yoon, the ultimate responsible person, was informed of the surveillance documents, when they were first created, and whether similar documents had been made before."

Lee also stated, "The Disciplinary Committee for Prosecutors will convene on the 2nd of next month and issue a new disposition," adding, "Accordingly, the suspension order will become ineffective, so there is no urgent need to suspend its effect now." He predicted that the court would dismiss Yoon’s lawsuit to cancel the suspension order because it would become meaningless once the Disciplinary Committee’s decision is made.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.