Ministry of Justice, Which Postponed Disciplinary Committee for 'Defense Rights Guarantee,' Rejects Prosecutor Yoon's Side's Information Disclosure Request

Denial of Disclosure Request for Disciplinary Committee Member List and Disciplinary Request Approval Documents
Difficulty in Requesting Avoidance of 'Inappropriate Members' Before Disciplinary Committee Meeting

Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, who was unable to go to work due to the suspension order issued by Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae, is arriving at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 1st.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] On the 2nd, the Ministry of Justice rejected the request from Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol's side to disclose the list of members of the Disciplinary Committee for prosecutors (hereinafter referred to as the Disciplinary Committee) and the disciplinary request approval documents for defense preparation.

The day before, the Ministry of Justice postponed the Disciplinary Committee, originally scheduled for that day, to the 4th, stating, "To ensure sufficient procedural rights and defense rights, we accepted the Prosecutor General's request and decided to postpone the Disciplinary Committee to the 4th." However, this action is expected to cause controversy as it does not align with the explanation given.

On the same day in the afternoon, Lee Wan-gyu, the legal representative of Prosecutor General Yoon, stated in a press release sent to reporters, "There has been no response yet regarding the copying of disciplinary records, and the disclosure of information on the disciplinary request approval documents and the list of committee members has been denied."

About 30 minutes later, Lee sent an additional statement to reporters, saying, "The Ministry of Justice refused to disclose the disciplinary request approval documents citing significant obstruction to the fair conduct of inspection duties, and the non-disclosure of the committee members' list was justified by concerns over invasion of privacy, fairness of the disciplinary process, and disruption of smooth committee activities."

The day before, Prosecutor General Yoon's side stated, "After the Ministry of Justice's Inspection Committee concluded, we requested information disclosure regarding the inspection of disciplinary records, disciplinary request approval documents, and the list of disciplinary committee members to prepare for defense during the disciplinary review process." They added, "Since the Ministry of Justice has not responded at all, making it impossible to prepare explanations, we applied for a change of the disciplinary review date until measures are taken."

The demand for the list of disciplinary committee members from Prosecutor General Yoon's side is interpreted as being mindful of the fact that figures critical of Yoon, such as Shim Jae-cheol, Director of the Ministry of Justice's Prosecutor's Office, and Shin Seong-sik, Head of the Anti-Corruption Department at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, are being mentioned as disciplinary committee members.

Yoon's side plans to file a recusation request to the Disciplinary Committee on the day of the review if these individuals participate as disciplinary committee members.

Meanwhile, the dominant interpretation regarding the Ministry of Justice's postponement of the Disciplinary Committee the day before is that it was a measure taken due to the resignation of Ko Ki-young, Deputy Minister of Justice, who was supposed to act as the disciplinary committee chairperson in place of Minister Choo, rather than the Ministry's stated reason of "ensuring Prosecutor General Yoon's defense rights."

Article 17 (Disqualification, Recusal, Avoidance) Paragraph 2 of the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act stipulates that "A person who requested the disciplinary action shall not be involved in the case review." Paragraph 3 of the same article states, "If the accused has reasons under Paragraphs 1 or 2 for the chairperson or a member, or if there are circumstances that make it difficult to expect fairness in the disciplinary decision, the accused may submit a written statement to the committee to request recusal," thereby guaranteeing the accused the right to recuse members whose fairness is in doubt.

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