Return or Suspension... Will Yoon's 'Let's Follow Procedures' Proof Strategy Work? (Comprehensive)

Hearing on Suspension of Execution Application: 'Yoon' Absent... Conclusion Expected by This Week at the Latest

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] It has been confirmed that the side of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol submitted legal documents proving the illegality of the disciplinary committee’s decision to impose a suspension to the court. With evidence collected so far regarding issues in exercising the right to defense and the composition process of the disciplinary committee, there is a high possibility that the court will carefully examine this matter before the main lawsuit. However, Prosecutor General Yoon has decided not to attend the hearing for the suspension of the disciplinary action’s execution.

The Administrative 12th Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Hong Soon-wook) will hold a hearing at 2 p.m. on the 22nd for the suspension of execution application filed by Prosecutor General Yoon against Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae.

On Yoon’s side, three legal representatives including lawyer Lee Wan-kyu will attend, while the Ministry of Justice will be represented by two lawyers including Lee Ok-hyung. Lawyer Lee stated in a position paper that “Prosecutor General Yoon will not attend today’s hearing.” Previously, Yoon did not attend the suspension of duty hearing held on the 30th of last month, nor the two deliberations of the Ministry of Justice’s Disciplinary Committee on the 10th and 15th.

Yoon’s side focused on supplementing evidence by submitting additional materials to the court up to one day before the hearing. The evidence explanation documents and additional written statements mainly include materials proving the illegality of the disciplinary procedure and the irreparable damage caused by the suspension.

In particular, materials concerning the procedural illegality of the disciplinary committee and the unfairness of the disciplinary reasons, which are mainly included in the main lawsuit, were also submitted. Since the disciplinary committee’s conclusion has already been reached, Yoon’s side argues that there is room for the administrative court to review issues related to the disciplinary committee’s procedures.

Looking at the details, it was stated that there were problems in exercising the right to defense due to excessive restrictions on viewing and copying investigation records and other materials. Previously, lawyer Lee from Yoon’s side claimed that the Ministry of Justice only showed part of the disciplinary records, and most of those shown were already publicly disclosed, making it practically difficult to exercise the right to defense. Clear legal grounds were also submitted regarding the explicit grounds for disqualification and recusal of disciplinary committee members. Regarding the “procedural process” issue, it was argued that Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae, who filed the disciplinary request against Prosecutor General Yoon, should have designated a person to represent related affairs after filing the disciplinary request, but instead, Minister Chu directly proceeded with the procedure until just before the disciplinary committee’s deliberation.

It was also pointed out that there were problems in the composition of the disciplinary committee. According to lawyer Lee, under the Disciplinary Act for Prosecutors, the disciplinary committee should have seven members deliberating, and if some members leave, vacancies should be filled by alternate members. However, the Ministry of Justice did not fill the vacancies with alternates but instead filled them with Professor Jeong Han-jung of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Law School, who was not previously a disciplinary committee member.

Additionally, it is known that the claim was made that Shin Sung-sik, head of the Anti-Corruption and Serious Crime Division of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, participating as a disciplinary committee member violated the Public Officials Disciplinary Regulations. Since Shin was identified as related to the Channel A case, one of the disciplinary reasons against Prosecutor General Yoon, his participation in the disciplinary committee was deemed inappropriate. Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the Public Officials Disciplinary Regulations prohibits persons related to the disciplinary reasons from participating in the deliberation and resolution of the case.

The Ministry of Justice is also reportedly preparing to counter Yoon’s side’s claims. Led by lawyer Lee Ok-hyung, they emphasize the legitimacy of the disciplinary action and the legality of the disciplinary committee’s operation process. Unlike the suspension of duty case, it is argued that there is no problem because the administrative procedure was finalized with the president’s approval. A Ministry of Justice official said, “We are waiting for the court’s judgment,” but added, “Unlike previous cases where viewing of investigation records was not permitted, we allowed copying in many parts and took all possible measures to guarantee the right to defense.”

In the legal community, considering the seriousness of the matter, it is expected that the court’s decision will come as early as late this afternoon or at the latest within this week. If the court grants the injunction, Prosecutor General Yoon will immediately return to duty; if dismissed, he will return to the position on February 16 next year, two months later.

Meanwhile, the civic group “Action Alliance for Restoring the Rule of Law” (Beopse-ryeon) filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission on the same day, arguing that the disciplinary action against Prosecutor General Yoon violated fundamental rights. They claim that the disciplinary committee was composed mostly of members appointed by Minister Chu, the disciplinary authority who filed the disciplinary request, making the disciplinary conclusion no different from a foregone conclusion. Beopse-ryeon also argued that most of the decisions, such as distributing the judge’s documents with the purpose and intention of attacking, slandering, or making jokes about the court, or violating political neutrality by saying “I will serve the people after retirement,” are mostly groundless speculation.

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