Yoon Prosecutor's Side: "A Historic Event Questioning the Rule of Law... Effectively Dismissed"

On the 22nd, Lee Seok-woong (from the left), Lee Wan-gyu, and Son Kyung-sik, attorneys representing Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, appeared at the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, for the hearing on the injunction application against the '2-month suspension' disciplinary action imposed on Prosecutor General Yoon. They responded to questions from the press. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] On the 24th, the side of Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol appealed to the court during the final statement of the second hearing on the injunction application against the '2-month suspension' disciplinary action, saying, "This case is a historic event that questions what the rule of law is," and "We hope for a wise judgment."

The hearing, conducted by the Administrative 12th Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Hong Soon-wook), started at 3 p.m. and ended around 4:15 p.m., after 1 hour and 15 minutes. It was reported that the court informed both Prosecutor General Yoon and Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae that a conclusion would be reached within the day.

During the hearing, Prosecutor General Yoon’s side argued, "This 2-month suspension effectively has the same effect as dismissal," and insisted, "The injunction application must be granted for the public welfare."

After the hearing, Yoon’s lawyer Lee Wan-gyu stated, "At today’s hearing, both the applicant (Prosecutor General Yoon) and the respondent (Minister Choo) responded to the questions ordered by the court."

Lawyer Lee explained, "First, regarding 'irreparable harm,' we emphasized that the exercise of disciplinary authority under the guise of discipline is an attempt to oust the Prosecutor General, fundamentally undermining the political neutrality and independence of the prosecution, which aims to stabilize and guarantee the Prosecutor General’s position through a fixed term."

He added, "The disciplinary action against Prosecutor General Yoon is entirely different in nature from disciplinary actions due to simple personal misconduct. Because of this nature, it involves not only personal harm but also harm to the entire prosecution organization and, furthermore, harm to society as a whole due to the undermining of the rule of law. We argued that the harm to the rule of law is even more significant."

Lawyer Lee also emphasized, "The 2-month suspension is effectively similar to dismissal," and stated, "Since the Prosecutor General is the highest supervisory authority of the prosecution, authority and honor are important in exercising supervisory rights. Even if the Prosecutor General returns after a 2-month suspension, the diminished status will prevent proper exercise of supervisory rights, inevitably resulting in a figurehead Prosecutor General."

He further stated, "The absence of the Prosecutor General during the 2-month suspension will cause significant disruption to important investigations such as the Wolseong nuclear power plant investigation, and there is also a risk that the investigation team could disband during the January personnel reshuffle due to the Prosecutor General’s absence."

Yoon’s side also testified regarding the public welfare impact in response to the Ministry of Justice’s claim that "if the injunction is granted, the public welfare related to the exercise of disciplinary authority will be infringed."

Lawyer Lee conveyed, "We argued that the swift restoration of the undermined rule of law is for the public welfare, and the smooth progress of important investigations such as the Wolseong nuclear power plant investigation is likewise."

He also stated, "Additionally, we testified about the issues related to the involvement of Commissioner Shim Jae-cheol, who recused himself in relation to the committee’s composition and the review of the recusal application. Since recusal is an acknowledgment of the grounds for disqualification, it has the same effect as the acceptance of the recusal application, so involvement in the review after the recusal application and until the recusal was illegal."

Finally, Lawyer Lee explained, "We clarified the nature of the court documents related to the disciplinary reasons and explained that the obstruction of the Channel A case inspection and investigation was a legitimate exercise of supervisory authority."

It is reported that Lawyer Lee appealed to the court in his final statement at the end of the hearing, saying, "This case is a historic event that questions what the rule of law is, so we hope for a wise judgment."

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