One Day Before the 'Disciplinary Suspension' Hearing... Choo and Yoon's All-Out Effort

Reviewing Individual Disciplinary Grounds Beyond Suspension Requirements... Inspection of Investigation and Disciplinary Processes Expected

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] Ahead of the second hearing of the suspension of execution case regarding the disciplinary action against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae and Yoon’s legal team have begun finalizing their strategies. Since the court has indicated that it will thoroughly examine not only the basic requirements for suspension of execution but also the individual grounds for disciplinary action, there is a high possibility that the circumstances during the inspection and disciplinary process will be re-evaluated.

According to the legal community on the 23rd, the Ministry of Justice and Yoon’s legal representatives are putting considerable effort into drafting responses to the court’s inquiries received immediately after the hearing the previous day.

The court’s inquiry sent to both parties included questions aimed at clarifying the illegality of the disciplinary committee’s procedures, in addition to comprehensive matters such as explanations regarding individual disciplinary grounds and the extent to which substantive hearings are necessary.

In particular, the Ministry of Justice was asked to provide detailed explanations on whether the concept of “irreparable harm,” a key issue in the suspension of execution application, includes the rule of law or the general interests of society. They also need to respond regarding the specific content of “public welfare” related to the other criterion, “whether it aligns with public welfare.” Additionally, explanations were requested on ▲ the legality of the composition of Yoon’s disciplinary committee ▲ specific clarifications on the grounds for Yoon’s disciplinary action ▲ the purpose of the court’s analysis documents ▲ whether the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department can initiate an inspection without Yoon’s approval, among other matters. The wording in the inquiry was reported to be even more detailed than this.

Similar questions were posed to Yoon’s side. Reviewing the inquiry issues disclosed by Yoon’s legal team on the same day, they were asked to substantiate the basis of the applicant’s claims regarding the court’s analysis documents and the obstruction of the Channel A inspection and investigation among the individual disciplinary grounds.

The key issue is the procedural illegality of the disciplinary committee, which is mainly included in the substantive lawsuit. Yoon’s side has argued that the excessive restriction on access to and copying of inspection records and other materials hindered the exercise of the right to defense. The Ministry of Justice only showed part of the disciplinary records, and most of those were already publicly disclosed externally, making it practically difficult to exercise the right to defense.

They also submitted related materials with legal grounds, pointing out clear grounds for disqualification and recusal of disciplinary committee members. Regarding “procedural issues,” the argument is that Minister Chu, as the party who requested Yoon’s disciplinary action, should have designated a person to handle related affairs after filing the disciplinary request, but she directly proceeded with the procedures until just before the disciplinary committee’s deliberation.

They also pointed out problems with the composition of the disciplinary committee. According to the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act, if some members leave the seven-member disciplinary committee, vacancies must be filled by alternate members. However, the Ministry of Justice did not fill the vacancies with alternates but instead appointed Professor Jeong Han-jung of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Law School, who had not previously been a disciplinary committee member.

The Ministry of Justice is also preparing to counter Yoon’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, it is argued that there is no problem because the administrative procedure was finalized with the President’s approval.

Yoon’s legal team and the Ministry of Justice plan to submit their written responses to the questions received on the same day before the second hearing. The court will conduct the hearing based on the parties’ responses on the 24th and then decide whether to suspend the effect of the disciplinary action against Yoon.

In the legal community, since the inquiry includes many issues that should be addressed in the substantive lawsuit, it is expected that the court will conduct detailed hearings not only on the simple requirements for suspension of execution but also on the substantive issues. This seems to take into account that the results of the substantive lawsuit are unlikely to be available before Yoon’s term ends in July next year. Since it is not practical to dispute the effectiveness of the “two-month suspension” disciplinary action after the term ends, the court intends to hear the substantive issues in this trial.

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