[Interview file] Min Jeong-suk's motherland, between moderation and intervention ⑤

In fierce martial arts competitions, scenes often outrage the opponent.

Instead of defending against an opponent who rushes at the lower body, he attempts counterattack by grabbing the opponent's upper body, or suddenly launching a surprise attack somewhere other than the original attack.

Last Friday, the legal battles of lawyers held at the sixth trial of former Minister Cho Kuk reminded me of a martial arts that followed by counterattack and surprise attack.

In the course of the battle, several cases were mobilized for obstruction of the exercise of the right to abuse of authority.

During the Park Geun-hye administration, the second deputy chief of the National Intelligence Service's ruling related to the'cultural blacklist', as well as the ruling of the former police chief Choi Ki-moon at the time of the'assault against Hanwha Kim Seung-yeon' 12 years ago were used as grounds for the battle.

The basic logic of the late prosecutor's office,

the'blacklist

and'Hanwha mat price

is that Cho and others

the'existential

the'right

special inspectors to inspect

.

In order to break this logic, former Minister Cho applied for a fact check to the Blue House before the start of the trial and obtained a rule.

It is <the Blue House's Internal Regulations for Delegation of Special Supervisory Groups>, which states that'Senior Min Jung has the authority to make decisions on behalf of the President for supervisory matters of the special supervisory group.

Based on this, the former minister

seems to have attacked the logic of the prosecution's prosecution, saying

,

.'

Former Minister Cho has debated more emphasis on the ‘interference in the exercise of rights’ part, rather than the ‘existential abuse’, which is the first part of the offenses against the exercise of ex officio abuse rights in the trial process so far.

The <Basic Regulations> received before the start of this trial will also be interpreted as an attack on this latter part.

When the 6th trial began, the prosecution reversed the attack on the part of former Minister Cho who came in aiming at the'back part'.

At the same time, they attacked the'front part' of Cho's alleged abuse of authority.

The prosecution insisted that the <rule of voting rights> brought up by former Minister Cho's side was rather the basis for supporting Cho's possession of'existential abuse'.

The prosecution

Iran unfolded the logic.

On that basis, I heard the precedent case of Yoonsoo Choi, the former second deputy chief of the NIS, who was convicted of intervening in the creation of a'cultural blacklist' during the Park Geun-hye administration.

At the time, the judiciary believed that it was an abuse of ex officio that allowed former deputy chief Yun-soo Choi, who had voting power, to continue blacklisting the subordinates.

General Prosecutor Lee Jeong-seop: Abuse of ex officio In many cases, voting rights were used as a means of proving that the abused ex officio existed, and it is believed that it is difficult to deduce that subordinates do not have authority because who has voting rights.

(Omitted) In the case of a high-ranking NIS officer, it is revealed again that he admitted to the abuse of a person with voting power.

The prosecution went further and attacked in other directions.

The

prosecution, who

originally

, said it would change the indictment.

It added a section saying,'Former Minister Cho

of the

supervisory members

.'

The offense of obstruction of the exercise of ex officio abuse applies not only when a public official abuses his authority

person's

person

As the former minister's side persistently attacked the logic of'obstructing the exercise of rights', in addition to this, he asked the court to see if the actions of his country's motherland were'causing him to do something without obligation'.

The prosecution is said to have presented the second trial of the former Police Commissioner Choi Ki-moon, who attempted to negate the police investigation during the so-called'match-price assault' by Chairman Kim Seung-yeon, as the grounds for the change of the complaint.

After retirement, former Commissioner Choi, who served as an advisor to Hanwha and asked the police to investigate the investigation, held a defense similar to that of Cho's at the trial.

It was the logic that'the police officers at the Gwangsudae and Namdaemun police stations at the time did not have the right to be disturbed, because the power of investigation was not with the lower level police officers, but with the chief of police.

Accordingly, the prosecution of the first trial in the second trial of the former Commissioner, in the contents of the indictment of the first trial

of the

of judicial police officers in the criminal investigation, and changed the'interruption of the

of the

judicial police officers to the criminal investigation,

changed it

'.

At the time, the second-trial court looked into whether the act of the former Commissioner Choi belonged to'obstructing the exercise of rights' or'causing to do something without obligation' according to the change of the prosecutor's office.

At the time of the second trial of Chief Commissioner Choi, the judge condemned him, but judged that the acts of Chief Commissioner Choi belonged to'obstruction of the exercise of rights' and not'to let him do something unmanaged'.

The court decided to accept the prosecution's change of the complaint.

Former Minister Cho has said it will submit a written opinion on these allegations by the prosecution.

It seems that the details of the defense logic or reversal the lawyer will perform against the prosecution's counterattack will be detailed in the next trial, two weeks later.

These scenes show how detailed and fierce the battles over the rule of law to obstruct the exercise of the right to abuse of authority are taking place in this trial.

The fatherland, the first chief civil servant of the current government, is standing at the forefront of the jurisprudence of abuse of authority that sent several former government officials to prison.

Mr. A in charge of audit of the Financial Services Commission and Mr. B in charge of HR were present at the court on the same day as witnesses. Both Mr. A and Mr. B testified that'At the time, we did not hear the contents of Yoo Jae-soo's abuse or the Blue House's instructions to repair Yoo Jae-soo's resignation. This is consistent with the testimony of the then-Chief Finance Commissioner Choi Jong-gu and Kim Yong-beom, then vice chairman, who attended the last trial. The clarifications made by former Minister Cho and former secretary Won-woo Baek and other officials in the Blue House Civil Affairs Office were once again refuted.

▶Prosecutor: Did you know what the defendant of his country said when he went to the National Assembly's management committee. (Cho Guk) went to the Operation Committee on December 31, 2018, and claimed to the effect of ``Notifying the Financial Services Commission of Yoo Jae-soo's private problem and the female issue.'' On the other hand, Chairman Choi Jong-gu and Vice-Chairman Kim Yong-beom testify that'there is no fact that we have not been notified of any private matters. That's why we ask a third-party witness, a witness who is a witness. Did the witness hear anything from the chairman or vice chairman about Jaesoo Yoo's private woman issue?

▷B: No.

(Omitted)

▶Prosecutor: Baek Won-woo said to Jae-soo Yoo,'I wish the Blue House's position would be accepted. By the way, has the witness ever been told or received an instruction to'resign from Yoo Jae-soo'?

▷B: No.

▶Prosecutor: The Blue House, Finance Committee Chairman, Vice Chairman, Yoo Jae-soo, haven't you ever heard that'you have to resign from Yoo Jae-soo'?

▷ Mr. B:

Together

, the four

witnesses left very bad testimonies to the defendant for nearly three hours. The lawyer's side tried to come up with a favorable answer by asking again, but there was no big income. Former secretary attorney Baek Won-woo asked, "Isn't it an euphemism to ask for resignation?" But Witness B said, "It's not 100% the same as saying that you can't leave Director Geum-Jeong and receive a resignation." Cut it and said. Regarding Jae-soo Yoo's resignation, the witnesses testified to the effect that'Yu Jae-soo's resignation was not a disadvantage due to the Blue House inspection, even if it was not until zero. This is the same purpose as the testimony of both Choi Jong-gu and Kim Yong-beom in the last trial.

There were also some achievements. At the end of the trial, former Minister Cho asked, "When the Blue House delivers personnel-related information, can it be delivered orally even if it is not an official document?" It was a question to crack down on the prosecution's claim that not leaving any official records on Yoo Jae-soo's personnel actions is one of the evidences of'prosecutor's mum'. Mr. B, who was in charge of human resources, responded to this, saying, "It can also come verbally." However, it also has a clue that it is'in case of dismissal of lawmakers rather than disciplinary dismissal'.

▶ Former Minister Cho Kook Attorney: When delivering the message to receive resignation, if the witness said it was a greeting, it can be delivered verbally, right?

▷ Mr. B: It is not disciplinary dismissal, and resignation is to dismiss the lawmaker, so it may be possible to come orally for personnel reasons.

Cheongwadae Civil Affairs Office, which has been handed down since the Chun Doo-Hwan regime, criticizes the legacy of'authoritarianism' and carries the label of'Incompetence and Irresponsibility'. How this stigma, which is stuck like a chronic disease in the senior civil servant's room, was revealed in more detail in the course of the 6th trial witness newspaper.

First of all, it could be seen that the'authority' of the Civil Affairs Office of the Blue House is still functioning as an obstacle to efficient communication, rather than a means to establish the discipline of public office. Unlike the elite prosecutor who has an authoritative feeling symbolized by Woo Byeong-woo, the top officials of the Financial Services Commission, who were notified of the prosecutor Yoo Jae-soo, did not know what this means, despite the appointment of Chief Min Jeong, a former private professor who walks the precincts of the President and the Blue House with take-out coffee. I was affirmed. Reasonable and common-sense questions such as'what is the content of criticism' and'how to deal with it correctly?

▶Prosecutor: But in this case, there wasn't any (notice of abuse). So I ask. The Financial Services Commission contacted the Blue House and said,'No, I didn't teach you any specific misleading information and no misleading information or supervisory information. Did the inspection result come out?' Couldn't you have asked like this?

▷ Mr. B: I am the head of the personnel department. Since it was in a negative sense to refer to personnel, it was operated like that.

▶Prosecutor: (In the prosecution's investigation, the witness) said this. 'The Blue House is our top department, so I can't ask. Is it one-sided. Did the inspection result come out? It is reality that I cannot ask.

▷ Mr. B: Usually, when receiving the verification result, only the result is received, and the basis for judgment is not received.

(Omitted)

▶Prosecutor: Then, what was the motivation for the witness when the vice chairman heard this story (referring to Yoo Jae-soo's personnel actions) from Baek Won-woo?

▷ Mr. B: When a call came from the chairman's office, I was talking with the chairman and the vice chairman, and in the process, there was a saying,'I contacted the Blue House to refer personnel, what should I do?' In my memory, I explained,'I'm also coming from the auditor's office, but the greeting reference story is not going to be promoted to the first level.

Eventually, battles about where the responsibilities of the prosecution, which were not properly fulfilled at the time, came and went during the trial process. Former Minister Cho's defense attorney asked Mr. A, who appeared as a witness,'the rumors of Jae-soo Yoo were circulating, but why did the inspectors at the time of the Financial Services Commission not properly inspect?' Mr. A protested with the effect that'we couldn't inspect only by rumors without the accusations of the chairman of the finance committee. For ordinary citizens who delegate power and live their daily lives, it would be more important to'whether the check function within the power is working well' rather than'where is the responsibility of the misconduct'. This pattern, which has been repeated in this government, is raising fundamental questions as to the reason for the existence of the Civil Service Chamber.

Former Minister Cho's next trial will take place on the 25th, two weeks later. At the beginning of all this, Jae-soo Yoo, former Vice Mayor of Busan City, will be present as the last witness in the dispute over whether the inspection is over.

(Photo = Yonhap News)