Today Yoon Seok-yeol's Application for 'Suspension of Disciplinary Execution' 2nd Hearing... Outcome Could Deal Critical Blow to Either Chu or Yoon

The Court Seems to Closely Examine Disciplinary Reasons and Procedures
Chief Judge Hong Sun-wook, a 'Principled Neutralist'... Evaluations Inside and Outside the Court

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae (left) and Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The second hearing for the injunction suspension case, in which Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol requested to suspend the effect of the "2-month suspension" disciplinary action until a final ruling on the cancellation lawsuit of the disciplinary action is made, will be held on the 24th.

With the court scheduling an additional hearing and indicating its intention to review matters that will be addressed in the main case?the disciplinary cancellation lawsuit, including the reasons for the disciplinary action and the disciplinary procedures?attention is focused on what strategies both Prosecutor General Yoon and the Ministry of Justice will adopt for the final hearing.

Special Nature of the Case... Hearing Likely to Resemble Main Case Trial

The Administrative Division 12 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Hong Soon-wook) will hold the second hearing for the injunction suspension requested by Prosecutor General Yoon against Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae at 3 p.m. on this day.

Typically, injunction suspension applications are decided without a separate hearing process, often concluding through written examination, as they temporarily suspend the effect of an administrative disposition before the final ruling of the main case, which is the cancellation lawsuit of the administrative disposition.

However, considering the importance of this case, the court held the first hearing and scheduled an additional hearing, signaling a hearing equivalent to a simplified main trial.

At the first hearing held two days ago, Presiding Judge Hong reportedly asked both parties detailed questions about each disciplinary reason against Prosecutor General Yoon and the convening and resolution process of the disciplinary committee regarding Yoon.

Normally, in injunction suspension cases against disciplinary actions, the court defers judgment on substantive issues such as the legality of the disciplinary action and the appropriateness of the disciplinary level, which are addressed in the main cancellation lawsuit. Instead, the court usually decides based on whether the suspension causes "irreparable harm," whether there is an "urgent need to prevent such harm," and the "impact on public welfare" if the effect of the disposition is suspended.

However, the court’s intention to examine the disciplinary reasons and procedures reflects the special nature of this case.

This is because Prosecutor General Yoon has only seven months left in his term, making it impossible for the final result of the main cancellation lawsuit to be reached before his term expires.

If the court dismisses Yoon’s injunction suspension request and he is suspended from duty for two months, even if he later wins the main lawsuit and the suspension is canceled, Yoon will have already completed his term and stepped down, making it impossible to restore the two months he was excluded from his duties.

Conversely, if the court grants Yoon’s injunction suspension request and suspends the effect of the disciplinary action, but later the main cancellation lawsuit ends with Yoon’s defeat, there is no way to apply the disciplinary action retroactively to Yoon, who has already completed his term.

Due to this unique situation, the court appears to intend to conduct a hearing close to a substantive judgment to minimize the risk of dismissing the injunction suspension and later canceling the disciplinary action, or granting the injunction suspension and later dismissing the cancellation lawsuit.

Likely to Examine Each Disciplinary Reason and Procedural Defects

Presiding Judge Hong reportedly mentioned at the first hearing that "this injunction suspension case is essentially no different from the main trial."

He requested Prosecutor General Yoon’s side to clarify ▲ the purpose of the court’s analysis document, ▲ specific explanations regarding individual disciplinary reasons such as obstruction of the Channel A case investigation and inspection, and ▲ what irreparable harm Yoon would suffer. For the Ministry of Justice, he asked to clarify ▲ what public welfare would be infringed if the effect of the suspension is halted, ▲ whether the disciplinary committee was properly constituted, and ▲ whether an inspection can be initiated without the approval of the Prosecutor General.

Ultimately, the court is expected to comprehensively review both substantive issues?whether the four disciplinary reasons cited by the disciplinary committee against Prosecutor General Yoon are justified and whether the 2-month suspension is an appropriate disciplinary measure?and procedural issues regarding the legality of the disciplinary committee’s composition, before making a final decision on whether to suspend the effect of the disciplinary action.

Previously, unlike the Ministry of Justice’s suspension of Minister Chu Mi-ae’s execution order, which the court accepted, this disciplinary action’s level was lower than initially expected and had President Moon Jae-in’s approval, leading to a prevailing view that the court would find it difficult to grant the injunction suspension again.

However, the court’s stance to examine the legality of the disciplinary action itself by scrutinizing specific disciplinary reasons can be seen as a favorable change for Prosecutor General Yoon’s side.

Uncertain Timing for Results... One Side Faces Critical Damage

The decision on whether to grant the injunction suspension could come as early as late this afternoon, but given the many issues to consider and the importance of the case, it may be announced after the weekend, early next week.

If the court decides to suspend the execution of the suspension, Prosecutor General Yoon will immediately return to duty and continue performing his role while pursuing the main cancellation lawsuit. Conversely, if the injunction suspension request is dismissed, Yoon will return to his position after two months and serve the remaining five months of his term.

Meanwhile, the ongoing conflict between Minister Chu and Prosecutor General Yoon, which has persisted for a year since Chu’s appointment, is expected to be finally decided by the court’s ruling on this injunction suspension case.

If the injunction suspension request is dismissed, pressure from the ruling party for Yoon’s resignation is expected to intensify. Although Yoon will return to his position after two months, it will likely be difficult for him to perform his duties as Prosecutor General normally.

On the other hand, if the injunction suspension request is granted, Minister Chu will face accountability for the "excessive inspection and disciplinary actions" against Prosecutor General Yoon. President Moon, who approved the disciplinary action, will also bear significant political burdens.

Presiding Judge Hong, who is handling this case, is regarded inside and outside the court as a "principled neutralist." Given the political ramifications and intense public interest in this case, which could critically damage one side depending on the ruling, attention is focused on what reasoning Judge Hong will present and what outcome will be delivered.

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