Yoon Seok-yeol Loses First Trial in Administrative Lawsuit Over '2-Month Suspension Cancellation'... Court Rules Disciplinary Action Legal and Appropriate

Former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol is seen expressing his intention to resign from the position of Prosecutor General during a meeting with reporters at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, last March. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] In the first trial of the administrative lawsuit disputing the legality of the Ministry of Justice's disciplinary action against former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, Yoon lost the case.

On the 14th at 2 p.m., the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 12 (Presiding Judge Jeong Yong-seok) announced in the lawsuit filed by former Prosecutor General Yoon against the Minister of Justice seeking cancellation of the disciplinary action, "The plaintiff's claim is dismissed."

The court stated, "The Ministry of Justice's disciplinary procedure was lawful," and added, "It cannot be considered an abuse of discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority by significantly losing social common sense and rationality." Regarding the recognized disciplinary reasons, the court also emphasized, "The disciplinary action of a two-month suspension is lighter than the lower limit of the disciplinary range set by the sentencing standards."

Previously, former Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae excluded former Prosecutor General Yoon from duty in November last year and held a disciplinary committee in December of the same year, issuing a two-month suspension. The disciplinary reasons cited by the Ministry of Justice at the time were ▲ preparation and distribution of documents alleging surveillance of major case trial panels ▲ obstruction of inspection and investigation related to the 'Channel A case' ▲ damage to the dignity and reputation of prosecutors due to political neutrality violations.

Yoon's side argued that these disciplinary reasons were either factually incorrect or not problematic, and therefore both the exclusion from duty and the disciplinary action should be canceled. He applied for a suspension of execution (stay of effectiveness) regarding the exclusion from duty and disciplinary action, and the court accepted both within a week, allowing him to return to duty.

During the trial process, Yoon's side claimed, "The disciplinary committee member who was subject to a challenge request left the room, and the decision related to the challenge request made by the remaining three disciplinary committee members was invalid because it did not meet the quorum (majority attendance of 7 total members)." The disciplinary committee dismissed all challenge requests by allowing the members challenged by Yoon's side to leave only during their own challenge decisions and alternately participate in other members' challenge decisions during two deliberation sessions.

However, the court ruled on this day, "A mere 'request' for challenge does not exclude the challenged disciplinary committee member from the attending members used to calculate the quorum for the challenge decision," and "Even if the member temporarily leaves during the decision process, they are not excluded from the attending members used to calculate the quorum."

The court also explained that the recognized disciplinary reasons, including ▲ preparation and distribution of documents alleging surveillance of major case trial panels ▲ obstruction of inspection and investigation related to the 'Channel A case,' sufficiently justify the disciplinary action. It added, "These disciplinary reasons constitute serious misconduct that undermines the legality and fairness of prosecutorial affairs," and "According to the relevant sentencing standards, disciplinary actions of dismissal or higher are also possible." The two-month suspension is actually lighter than the lower limit of the disciplinary range set by the sentencing standards.

This ruling is likely to negatively affect Yoon's side in the separate ongoing administrative lawsuit seeking cancellation of the 'exclusion from duty' order. The court handling the exclusion from duty cancellation case, with the second hearing scheduled for the morning of the 15th, has stated it will refer to the ruling in the disciplinary action cancellation lawsuit.

Yoon resigned from the Prosecutor General position about four months before his term expired in March and declared his candidacy for the presidential election in June. The conclusions of the two administrative lawsuits do not affect Yoon's eligibility to run for office. However, many view the lawsuit outcomes as a gauge to determine whether Yoon rightfully received exclusion from duty and disciplinary action for violating political neutrality and abusing authority, or whether it was an unjust measure by the current administration as he claims.

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