There is no right to compulsory investigation in the civil administration's senior office.
You do not have the authority to track accounts.
The prosecution has such power.
It is a post-mortem foundation that accuses the Civil Affairs Chief Office of the fact that it was investigated by the prosecution and prosecuted through forced investigation and punished.
(…) The
Office of the President's Secretariat requires a high degree of confidentiality and politics.
Stipulation of measures places serious restrictions on the exercise of presidential personnel rights and activities in the secretary office.
No government has ever established standards and procedures for action.
-2020.11.03.
Testimony of witnesses at the 8th trial of the former chief civil servant of Korea
The special prosecutors and prosecutors were charged with ex officio abuse and abstention from all the periods of work at the Blue House.
Prosecutors did not reveal what happened in the past, they made it anew.
(…)
I sincerely appeal to you to find the truth by peeling off the shells of lies and fiction made by the prosecutor, and to reveal my resentment.
Please adhere to the rule of law to prevent some political prosecutors from serving as final judges by using the crime of abuse and abandonment of duty as swords.
-2020.11.12.
Byung-Woo Woo, Former Chief Min Jeong-do, final statement on appeal
On November 3rd, after Ahre, former Minister Cho Kook, testified at his 8th trial witness stand, former Chief Min Jung Woo Byung-woo made a final statement for the second trial.
'The prosecutor's office reorganized and reorganized what happened during his tenure in office,' and'Do not apply excessive abuse of authority and abandonment of duties to the political judgment of the presidential secretary's office.
The former government and the current government's chief civil servants, who appeared in court a week apart, both appealed in court.
Gukjeong Nongdan and Prosecutor's Office
The nature and weight of the suspicion the two are facing are different, but the issues that the people on the judging table of the law addressed were the same.
Because the matters are different, the results of legal judgments against them will not be the same.
However, just a few years apart, the standards of the law that will be applied to those who served as civil servants in the previous and current regimes must be fair.
In that sense, there are several points to be considered and recorded in the testimony of former Minister Cho Kook, held two weeks ago, and the testimony directly poured out by Cho.
● In the
morning trials
of the civil
administration's chief
office
at
that time and the civil
administration's chief
office now,
after a cross-examination by the lawyers against former civil administration secretary Baek Won-woo ended, former Minister Cho Kuk sat in the witness stand.
First, the prosecution, who went to the Witness newspaper, asked,'Isn't the lifesaving campaign of key passport holders the cause of the suspension of the inspection of Yoo Jae-soo?'
Former Minister Cho replied,'I heard that there is a lifesaving exercise, but I did not know who specifically does it.
The prosecution didn't just go over.
'Isn't it supposed to figure out who is doing the lifesaving exercise and take action?'
Former Minister Cho explained,'We couldn't discuss Yoo Jae-soo in depth because we were reporting the reform plan with the National Intelligence Service and the prosecution to the president.
Still, the prosecution persistently asked.
He attacked with a'contradiction', saying,'It's not important, and why did the civil affairs secretary Baek Won-woo intervene in the investigation of Yoo Jae-soo, which is in charge of the anti-corruption secretary?
Former Minister Cho raised his voice with a raging tone.
▷ Prosecutor: The testimony that the witnesses said was too contradictory. In this situation, the case of Yoo Jae-soo at the time was nothing, and on the other hand, it was a difficult case that was pressed by the special supervisory team due to civil complaints from participating government officials at the time.
Isn't it contradictory?
▶ Former Minister of Korea: (raising his voice) Why is that contradictory?
"Isn't it that you had to take action by finding out who's doing the lifesaving campaign, the key people in your passport?"
The prosecution did not back down despite the fierce reaction of former Minister Cho.
Former Minister Cho listened to the parable between the group president and the manager.
He confronted that it was not necessary to understand and take action on all such details.
▶ Former Minister of Korea: Secretary Won-woo Baek is assigned to understand the situation, and when Secretary Won-woo Baek performs the work, I will receive a report and make a decision.
There were numerous cases under my jurisdiction, and in the situation where I report and make decisions from early morning, if I take all the matters, my job as a chief was impossible.
The same goes for civil affairs secretaries and other secretaries.
What I'm going to do on that line is that line, and the final decision is mine.
That's the normal system of work.
Is the group chairman in charge of the managerial affairs of the company?
The prosecution then asked why Jae-soo Yoo did not handle the prosecution issue as a disciplinary or investigation request, but as a personnel measure.
Former Minister Cho testified that the judgment of civil affairs secretary Baek Won-woo was correct, saying,'In order to minimize the impact on the public office, which was disturbed in the process of liquidating the redundancy, the case should be completed with personnel measures.'
At the same time, he shared his thoughts on the personality of the presidential secretary's office, including the chief civil servant's office.
▶ Former Minister
Cho
Kook: The
Office of the President's Secretariat is an organization that helps the President's official judgment, including the Chief Civil
Service
Office.
The Civil Affairs Chief Office has supervisory authority to the extent that it supports the president's personnel rights.
It is not an investigation right.
'Let's treat it as a human resources issue', that's a political judgment.
In the judgment of whether to solve it as a criminal punishment problem or a personnel problem, Secretary Baek Won-woo decided it as a personnel problem, and in a larger view I raised the hand.
The civil administration chief's authority is only to assist the president's personnel rights, and therefore, political judgment is inevitably involved rather than an unconditional principle in the execution of the authority of the civil administration chief.
Cho's interpretation of the mandate of the Civil Affairs Office is also reflected in the testimony below.
▶ Former Minister of the Republic of Korea: There was no standard for what procedure to follow after the end of special inspection in all previous governments.
The office of the presidential secretary is demanded of a high degree of confidentiality and politics.
Stipulation of measures places serious restrictions on the exercise of presidential personnel rights and activities in the secretary office.
No government has ever established standards and procedures for action.
Based on these interpretations of his duties, Cho also made the following interpretations of <Article 7 of the Office of the President's Secretariat Office>, which stipulated for the special inspection team under the Civil Administration Office.
▶ Former Minister of Korea: The history of the creation of Article 7 is very important.
Article 7 was created by Moon Jae-in, Chief Min Jeong at the time of the Participating Government.
Why did you create that office?
Until then, there was a so-called'Sajikdong Team'.
(…) The abuse of the authority of the'Sajik-dong Team' became a serious problem, and the media and the opposition party made it a problem.
At that time, Moon Jae-in, head of Min Jeong, made the 7 articles after the participatory government, and when he read the condolences, it was nailed that it was limited to the fact-checking and information collection.
He said it should not be investigated.
(…) The
Civil Affairs Office is not an appraisal agency, and is not an appraisal agency above the appraisal agency.
Even though the office of the presidential secretary was created during the participatory government, there were many abuses of the civil administration's chief executive office during the Park Geun-hye administration.
I tried to keep this intent of Article 7 using this as a teacher.
Based on the testimony, Cho's interpretation of the duties of the current government's chief civil affairs office is mainly focused on two things.
▲ weaker than the license rights investigations are
, and
how much discretion with the judge on the basis of information invincible when handling ▲ inspection result
is.
However, the first trial sentence convicted of abandonment of duties to former Chief Min Jeong-woo Woo Byeong-woo on charges of condoning or assisting the Gukjeong Nongdan of Choi Soon-sil's party interprets the duties of the former administration’s chief civil servants and the special inspection team as follows.
In this way,
there is
a
separate organization
called the Special Inspection Team
to strictly inspect the corruption of high-ranking officials and those with special relations with the President
. In light of the comprehensive power of the chief civil administration to collect, coordinate the affairs of the prosecution, police, and all appraisal agencies, and to assist the president in law, the civil administration chief is a high-ranking official or a person with a special relationship with the president. In the event that an act that obstructs the exercise of another's rights or causes an unobligated job to be performed by using a special relationship with the President is discovered, or when a clear situation in which such an act is suspected is confirmed, a
prosecution is initiated and the facts are destroyed, and then the President
It should be
considered
that
there is a duty of duty to take appropriate measures, such as reporting to or requesting an investigation
.
-Seoul Central District Court 33rd Criminal Division, Woo Byeong-woo, former Chief Civil Engineer's first trial decision
The judiciary, which sent former chief civil servant Woo Byung-woo to jail, is giving a slightly different interpretation of the duties of the former administration's civil administration chief office and special inspectorate group from that of Cho.
According to the judgment of Woo Byeong-woo's first trial, the former administration's Civil Affairs Office
▲
has
a separate organization to strictly inspect corruption
and
▲ is
an organization that also has the
duty to report to the President or request an investigation if the situation is confirmed
.
As mentioned earlier, there is a difference between former Chief Min Jeong-woo, Woo Byeong-woo and former Chief Min-jeong-guk of Korea.
The social expectations that the Blue House Civil Affairs Office, which was launched after the Candlelight Revolution, is also not the same as in the previous administration.
However, the court's judgment on the exercise of their duties has no choice but to start from the common point of'legal interpretation of senior civil affairs'.
Interest is focused on the logic and interpretation of the two judges' previous administration and the current administration's civil affairs chief's office.
There may be differences in the interpretation results, but the controversy that the court's interpretation of the abuse of authority is political and arbitrary will not subside unless the interpretation is supported by convincing logic.
● Schrödinger's discretion There
have also been battles on the standards of criminal punishment against the discretion of the chief civil servant.
Throughout his testimony, former Minister Cho said, ``It is the discretion of Chief Min Jung to take measures in the direction of receiving resignation for Yoo Jae-soo, who was caught accused of misconduct.
Then, at the end of the trial, the prosecution attacked me, saying,'You are a legal expert, so I will ask you.'
▷ Chief Prosecutor Lee Jeong-seop: There may be controversy about taking measures against the supervision, but
even if it is a discretionary act, do you know that it is illegal if there is no action or deviation from the discretionary power?
▶Former Minister Cho Kook: I agree with that in the sense of the textbook, but I cannot agree that the general theory of administrative law applies to judging my case at this point.
It is not me, but the judgment of the judge.
At that time, in response to the claim that one's job performance belongs to'discretion', the
prosecution unfolded the logic that'discretionary power is also subject to judicial review, and deviation or abuse is illegal.'
Then Park Hyung-cheol, the former anti-corruption secretary's attorney, launched a cover fire.
It was in the form of a question, but it was a statement that presented the legal interpretation of the lawyers on criminal punishment for exercising discretion.
▷ Park Hyung-cheol, former secretary attorney: Since the prosecutor asked the witness that he was a legal expert, I will ask.
The intent of the prosecutor's claim that it is illegal to deviate or abuse the discretionary right is to ask,'Doesn't it constitute a crime against the exercise of the right to abuse or abuse the discretionary right?'
However, ex officio abuse is the crime of obstructing the exercise of the right to obstruct people's rights or to do unrelated things.
In connection with any administrative action, sanctioned administrative action always takes everything that interferes with the exercise of another person's rights or imposes a duty of no obligation.
When a deviation or abuse of discretion in an administrative act is judged to be illegal, the illegal administrative act is canceled. However, if the
deviation or abuse of discretion leads to criminal punishment
, the
discretionary deviation or abuse in any administrative act Are not all of them at risk of leading to crimes against the exercise of the right to abuse of authority?
▶ Former Minister of Korea: I agree with the purpose of the talk.
In the question of former secretary attorney Park Hyung-cheol, there is a logic that ``even if the administrative act in the form of sanctions deviates from discretion or abuses the discretionary power, if all criminal penalties are punished, an excessive bridle may be put on the entire administrative act.
Therefore, it is argued that it is necessary to be cautious in interpreting administrative acts that may lead to aberration of discretionary rights and disputes of abuse as'existential abuse'.
The crime of abuse of authority, which has existed mainly in the law for nearly 50 years, came out into the world after being widely applied in the so-called redemption process.
As the application of abuse of authority is increasing, there is also a demand for questioning whether it is abuse of authority even in the exercise of discretion of public officials.
In the first quarter of this year alone, more than 5,000 public officials have been accused and accused of obstructing the exercise of the right to abuse of authority, and if this is the case, there is a prospect that more than 20,000 public officials will be sued and accused of abuse of authority this year.
Whether deviation or abuse of administrative discretion can be subject to criminal punishment, and the judgment logic that the court of this case will come up with has become important.
● Reconstruction of Different Memories
Former Minister Cho's memories of the process of handling the contents of prosecution Yoo Jae-soo matched most of the testimony of civil administration secretary Won-woo Baek in the last trial.
It also means that the memories of those who have already sat in the witness stand, such as Park Hyung-cheol Choi Jong-gu and Kim Yong-beom, do not coincide in many areas.
Regarding the testimony of former anti-corruption secretary Park Hyeong-cheol that there was no such thing as a three-person meeting between the motherland, Baek Won-woo and Park Hyeong-cheol regarding the handling of the results of the inspection of Yoo Jae-soo, the former Minister Cho refuted by explaining the scene of the three-member meeting in detail.
▶ Former Minister of Motherland: (…) So, I already knew that the two people had different opinions, and both of them already knew.
So I contacted the annex and asked them to come.
This is because Yoo Jae-soo decided that he had to conclude with the judgment that'if you leave this there is a problem,' while legal inspection was impossible in the situation where Yoo Jae-soo was sleeping after being sick.
Finally, I called two people in my room, and there are three large office tables: a private table, a large square table, and a round round table.
The round table is a table for talking with the secretaries while drinking tea, and I sat there and said,'I'm in this state, so I have to decide today.'
So, Secretary Park Hyung-cheol made a brief report on the situation, made a report on the alleged misconduct, gave his opinion, and Secretary Won-woo Baek shared his opinion briefly, and I decided and ordered.
That's it.
Regarding the specific statement of former Minister Cho, the prosecution said it was unbelievable, and criticized him, saying, ``Isn't you trying to disperse the responsibilities by saying that we discussed with secretaries Park Hyung-cheol and Baek Won-woo?
Former Minister Cho raised his voice again, saying that it was "very insulting."
▷Prosecutor: Hyung-cheol Park insists that there was no such meeting. Isn't it the logic to disperse the responsibility by pretending to have stopped inspecting the inspection by Park Hyeong-cheol and Baek Won-woo after consulting with Jae-soo Park?
▶ Former Minister of Korea: I will not answer this question as it is a very insulting question.
(…) If you tried to bypass the inspection through secretary Baek Won-woo, you would have told you not to do the inspection when the lifesaving movement was reported in the first place!
Regarding the testimony of Kim Yong-gu, then vice chairman of the Financial Services Commission, that he had never received an opinion to the effect of ``receiving the resignation'' from former civil affairs secretary Baek Won-woo, but rather that he heard that ``most allegations of misconduct have been cleared,'' former Minister Cho testified that it was difficult to believe. I did.
▷ Inspection: I'll do one more.
You saw Kim Yong-beom's testimony.
(From Baek Won-woo) You said that the information you received was'Yoo Jae-soo was inspected, but most were cleared', right?
▶ Former Minister of Korea: I have never spoken to Kim Yong-beom.
I don't understand why you're talking about that.
I can guess.
Secretary Baek Won-woo, whom I know, is a straight human, although he does not have a good reputation for others.
He is a straight person, not a person who is obsessed with words.
It is a person who executes when directed, not a person who spins round and round.
I have speculations on why Kim Yong-beom speaks like that.
Why did he say that...
I believe your judge will judge, and I don't think it's polite to talk about.
After the testimony of former Minister Cho, the mixed memories of the witnesses came to the court.
How do you fit the puzzle pieces of memory that the angler does not fit?
The ball is now entirely up to the judges.
Four days later, on Friday (20th), the judiciary goes into investigation of the documentary evidence.
The record of the trial dealing with the'prosecutor's suspicion' when he served as Chief Min Jeong is also approaching the end.
**Reference Documents
Prospects to record record highs in accusations and accusations
of'ex
officio abuse', strong reporter, legal newspaper, June 1, 2020
▶ [2020.05.20 report file] Min Jeong-suk's fatherland, between moderation and intervention ①
▶ [2020.10. File] Min Jeong-suk's motherland, between moderation and intervention ⑥