Yoon Seok-yeol's Side Ahead of Disciplinary Committee Uses Japanese Case to Refute 'Judge Surveillance' Allegations

Publication of Booklet Containing Judge Information Including Sepyeong
Agenda Rejected the Day Before Nationwide Judges' Representative Meeting Disclosed

On the morning of the 1st, when the Ministry of Justice Inspection Committee's temporary meeting related to Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol was scheduled, Lee Wan-gyu, the legal representative of Prosecutor General Yoon, answered reporters' questions as he entered the Ministry of Justice building at the Government Complex Gwacheon.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Ministry of Justice is actively rebutting ahead of the disciplinary committee meeting regarding the 'judge surveillance document,' which is cited as the reason for the disciplinary action against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol.

On the 8th, Yoon's legal representative, lawyer Lee Wan-gyu, revealed that the Japanese judge information booklet "Saibankan Who's Who" contains information on 115 judges belonging to the Tokyo District Court and High Court.

The booklet includes evaluations of each judge's case management, career history, major cases handled, publications and papers authored, as well as personality assessments such as "a good person" or "someone who does not flatter superiors," and hobby information like "likes baseball and participates in the judges' baseball team."

Regarding the Hanpun judge surveillance document, all related agenda items were rejected at the National Judges' Representative Meeting the previous day, and no separate statement was made citing "compliance with judges' political neutrality obligations." In this situation, Yoon's side appears to emphasize that there is "no legal issue" even if this matter is addressed at the disciplinary committee on the 10th.

Additionally, the Judges' Representative Meeting disclosed seven proposals, including the original and amended versions that were rejected the previous day, to the media on the same day.

At the meeting the previous day, the original proposal stating "We firmly oppose any attempt that violates the separation of powers and procedural justice, unfairly affecting the independence and fairness of trials" was followed by amendments such as "The prosecution's collection of judges' information unrelated to maintaining prosecution is to be avoided as it may infringe on judicial independence and trial fairness," but all were rejected in successive votes.

Separately, the injunction to suspend the effect, filed along with the constitutional complaint against the disciplinary committee member clause of the Prosecutors' Disciplinary Act by Yoon's side, is widely expected not to be issued before the disciplinary committee meeting on the 10th. If the disciplinary committee proceeds to decide on severe disciplinary actions such as dismissal, it is anticipated that Yoon will immediately file a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disciplinary action and apply for a suspension of execution with the court.

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