Ministry of Justice Inspection Committee Holds Emergency Meeting... Likely to Recommend Withdrawal of Disciplinary Request and Suspension of Prosecutor Yoon

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae is entering the Government Seoul Office in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the 1st to attend the Cabinet meeting. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The temporary meeting of the Ministry of Justice Inspection Committee to discuss the fairness and legality of the investigation process of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol was held on the 1st, drawing intense attention to how it will affect the disciplinary committee meeting on the 2nd that will decide Yoon’s fate.

There is a widespread expectation that the Inspection Committee will point out procedural illegality in the investigation and pass a resolution stating that the disciplinary request is unjust, which will then be conveyed to Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae.

The Inspection Committee held a temporary meeting from 10 a.m. at the Government Complex Gwacheon, listening to opinions from both Yoon’s side and the Ministry of Justice’s Inspection Department, and then discussed the overall investigation of Yoon that formed the basis for Minister Choo’s disciplinary request and suspension order.

Lee Wan-gyu, Yoon’s legal representative, said before attending the meeting, “We will express our position as much as possible regarding procedural issues in the disciplinary request and the unfairness of the disciplinary reasons.”

Inspection Committee member A also stated in the morning, “We will examine whether the disciplinary procedure against Prosecutor General Yoon is appropriate and whether the disciplinary requirements are met,” adding, “Since this is a serious inspection matter, I believe the Inspection Committee, as an advisory body to the minister, should play its role.”

Since the Inspection Committee meeting itself was convened at the request of members opposing the Ministry of Justice’s measures, there is a high possibility that a resolution will be passed stating that Minister Choo’s disciplinary request and suspension order are illegal or unjust. There is also a possibility that the committee will recommend postponing the disciplinary committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow.

Issues are also expected to be raised regarding Minister Choo’s sudden revision of the Inspection Committee regulations earlier last month, allowing important inspection matters to bypass the committee, and the delay in convening the Inspection Committee ahead of Yoon’s disciplinary committee, effectively blocking its meeting.

In particular, regarding the “judge surveillance document” cited as the most serious disciplinary reason by Minister Choo, there is a high likelihood that the committee will question why the record by Prosecutor Lee Jeong-hwa, who conducted the investigation and concluded that “abuse of authority does not apply,” was omitted from the final report.

The fact that Minister Choo’s suspension order was issued immediately after the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office, which is investigating the “Wolseong Unit 1 nuclear power plant” case, reported plans to request arrest warrants for related parties is also seen by the Inspection Committee members as an element that raises suspicion of political motives behind Minister Choo’s actions.

Of course, as an advisory body, the committee’s recommendations are not binding. However, if Minister Choo, who has accepted most recommendations from similar advisory bodies such as the Ministry of Justice and Prosecution Reform Committee, ignores unfavorable recommendations, public criticism could intensify.

Meanwhile, as opinions are converging among prosecutors at frontline prosecution offices as well as those under the Ministry of Justice that Minister Choo’s actions are illegal and unjust, the Korean Association of Law Professors issued a statement on the day strongly criticizing, “The disciplinary request and suspension order against the Prosecutor General violate the due process prescribed by the Constitution and violate substantive laws such as criminal law and the Prosecutors’ Office Act.”

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