Autumn·Yoon Final Showdown... Honesty or Return, The Last Strategic Battle

Preliminary Hearing for Main Lawsuit Scheduled... Both Parties Submit Additional Materials Beyond Q&A Statements

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] Ahead of the court's ruling on the unprecedented disciplinary action against the sitting Prosecutor General in constitutional history, Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae and Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol are entering their final showdown. Since both sides have revealed their final hands, the opponent's weaknesses are clearly exposed. This hearing is also expected to involve proceedings equivalent to the main lawsuit.

On the 24th, the Administrative Division 12 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Hong Soon-wook) will hold the second hearing at 3 p.m. regarding the injunction application filed by Prosecutor General Yoon against Minister Chu.

The Ministry of Justice and Prosecutor General Yoon's legal representatives have all submitted their responses to the additional inquiries requested by the court immediately after the first hearing. After internal discussions, any further additions will be presented with explanations on-site. It is known that both sides have submitted separate legal documents concerning the disciplinary committee procedures beyond the court's requested matters.

Prosecutor General Yoon's side plans to once again emphasize the procedural flaws of the disciplinary committee, which they have persistently highlighted, during the second hearing. Although issues with the disciplinary committee's procedures were initially expected to be addressed only in the main lawsuit, Yoon's side succeeded in attracting the court's attention by submitting a large amount of evidence proving the committee's illegality even before the hearing. During the first hearing, the court spent considerable time asking both sides for opinions on the disciplinary committee's procedures and member composition, so they have prepared responses and rebuttals at the level of the main lawsuit for this session as well.

However, the 'court documents' that have hindered Prosecutor General Yoon since his suspension require a more detailed stance. Previously, the disciplinary committee judged that these documents were created with the intent to distort public opinion or defame the court, despite Yoon's side's objections. Yoon's side included additional explanations about these documents in their response to the court's inquiry.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice must actively demonstrate that the disciplinary committee's operation was lawful. Since restrictions on inspection of investigation records and rejection of recusals of disciplinary committee members are being cited as illegal factors, there is a possibility that opinions from the disciplinary committee members who attended the disciplinary meeting will be additionally conveyed. In fact, it has been confirmed that the Ministry of Justice submitted testimony materials from individuals who attended as witnesses during the investigation and disciplinary process of Prosecutor General Yoon.

The responses from both sides regarding the reasons for Prosecutor General Yoon's disciplinary action are also key factors for the court's decision on whether to halt the disciplinary measure. Among the disciplinary reasons acknowledged by the committee, the 'order to create and distribute court analysis documents' and 'obstruction of the Channel A case investigation' are representative. Originally, these matters were to be examined during the main case, the cancellation lawsuit.

Legal circles expect that the second hearing will further expand on the issues that will be contested in the main case. This is interpreted as an effort to prevent a situation where the injunction application is dismissed, causing Yoon to be unable to perform his duties as Prosecutor General for two months and complete his term before the disciplinary action is canceled, or conversely, where the injunction is granted, allowing Yoon to immediately return to duty and complete his term before a conclusion is reached that the disciplinary action is valid. Presiding Judge Hong Soon-wook also revealed during the first hearing that "this injunction case is virtually no different from the main trial."

Generally, injunction cases do not take long to reach a conclusion. However, since this case involves the disciplinary decision of a sitting Prosecutor General and the court is examining it extensively, the verdict may be delivered after Christmas. Previously, the provisional injunction decision regarding Yoon's suspension was made the day after the first hearing.

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