[Interview file] Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol disciplinary committee... 'Chu Miae's Magic Number 4'

Yesterday (10th), the Prosecutor's Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Disciplinary Committee) of the Ministry of Justice was held for the incumbent prosecutor general for the first time in constitutional history.

Initially, the disciplinary committee's first designation date was December 2.

However, Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae changed the schedule of the disciplinary committee to December 4, the day before the meeting.

was the justification that

."

Minister Chu will postpone the schedule one day before the revised disciplinary committee.

The justification was the same as before.

In this way, the disciplinary committee against President Yun

was held after being repeatedly postponed to the

.

On the surface, both the process of postponing the disciplinary committee twice by Minister Chu was in the form of accommodating Mr. Yun's request.

In the letter sent twice to the reporters, it said, "I accept the request of President Yun."

However, Minister Chu did not postpone the disciplinary committee simply with altruistic intentions to give Mr. Yoon time.

From the point of view of Minister Chu, it seems that 8 days were needed.

As a result, Minister Chu, who earned eight days of time, can be seen as gaining two things.

First of all, it minimizes procedural disputes by listening to President Yoon's request and guaranteeing the right of defense in the face of public opinion.

What was the other part that Minister Chu was trying to gain from his time?

From the beginning of this month, Minister Chu has faced difficulties in forming a disciplinary committee.

It is known that he looked at the disciplinary committee, but it was not smooth.

A university professor who thought he could stand on'our side' and tried to take the chairmanship left.

The lawyer, who had decided to attend the disciplinary committee, also expressed his intention to absent.

In addition to known examples, there will be more.

It is said that he felt a lot of pressure due to the criticism that it was'unreasonable inspection' or'cutting inspection'.

Looking at this process as a whole, it can be seen that, in the past, Minister Chu and those in charge of the Ministry of Justice's prosecutor's office took time to form a disciplinary committee for President Yun.

composition of

disciplinary committee is a prerequisite for proceeding with the disciplinary process of President Yoon.

There are seven like this.

However, in this case, Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae is a disciplinary claimant, so he cannot participate in the disciplinary deliberation process, so another member must be appointed as chairman.

In the end, it was the remaining six disciplinary members who proceeded with the disciplinary process.

Earlier this month, however, Professor A of Seoul Private University resigned from his position on the disciplinary committee.

I didn't even meet my three-year term.

I tried to contact Professor A to ask why, but I couldn't hear the answer.

However, if you listen to the explanation from the Ministry of Justice, it is possible to assume that Professor A felt burdened with the progress of the disciplinary committee.

It is said that lawyer B, who was a former judge, also recently announced to the Ministry of Justice that he would not participate in the disciplinary committee.

It seems possible for a disciplinary committee composed of these disciplinary members to be held, since it is a majority of 7 people if there are 4 members.

Byeon-yeon was the prosecutor's office chief Shim Jae-cheol.

Director Shim Jae-cheol is an official directly related to the alleged disciplinary action of Yoon.

In particular, he is also the informant of the controversial'judge analysis (inspection) document suspicion'.

There is also a side contrary to President Moon Jae-in's message to secure legitimacy and fairness when Director Shim Jae-cheol takes on the committee.

For this reason, there have been constant predictions that Director Shim Jae-cheol will evade the position of the disciplinary committee.

"It was a predicted procedure for Director Shim Jae-cheol to evade the disciplinary committee position. If he does not do so, he knows that it will be a problem. It

.

" I explained.

Jae-

Director Shim

cheol's self-avoidance as a disciplinary committee is an important point of the scenario that Minister Chu is envisioning.

Assuming that Director Shim Jae-cheol avoids the commission, the remaining disciplinary committee members are ▲ Vice Minister Lee Yong-gu ▲ Anjin Chonnam National University Law School professor ▲ Shin Seong-shik, head of the anti-corruption force of the Supreme Prosecutor's Office. .

What kind of personnel Chu will recruit has been a major concern in the legal profession in recent years.

Prof. Jeong, who was designated as chairman, has continued to criticize President Yoon while serving as a member of the past history of the prosecution.

At the prosecution reform debate, the prosecution's investigation against the former Minister of Justice Cho Kook was also intensive.

Besides Director Shim Jae-cheol, there is one other prosecutor who participated as a disciplinary committee.

What was the role of anti-corruption manager Shin Seong-sik?

It has been reported that Yoon recently expressed his willingness to oppose the request to evade the anti-corruption chief, saying, "Shin Sung-sik (the anti-corruption chief) is my staff. How can I avoid the staff?"

It was reported that there was no positive expression of anti-corruption chief Shin Sung-shik at the disciplinary committee yesterday.

It must have been very embarrassing.

Director Shin Seong-sik said, "I would like to exclude you from the disciplinary committee."

However, from the perspective of Minister Chu, Director Sung-sik Shin was absolutely necessary.

An official on Yoon's side said, "It seems that it has only served as a quorum for the holding of the disciplinary committee. Even if Shin opposes the disciplinary action of Yoon in the future, it is highly likely to be resignation."

.

As a result of the resolution, it is unlikely that the opinions of the committee members on the discipline of President Yoon will conclude with a tight confrontation, for example <2 vs.

However, in other words, it seems difficult to point out and criticize the bias in the composition of'Magic Number 4'.

An attorney from a prosecutor's office raised a question about the representation of the disciplinary committee.

The lawyer

it."

to the voices of the

, Yoon said, "Thank you for your hard work. Let's do our best" to special lawyers after the first disciplinary committee was over, Yoon said.

There is a high possibility that Yoon will not attend the 2nd Disciplinary Committee, which is held privately at the Gwacheon Government Complex of the Ministry of Justice, next Tuesday at 10:30 am on the 15th.

① Ryu-hyuk, prosecutor at the Ministry of Justice ② Park Young-jin, prosecutor at the Ulsan District Prosecutor's Office (former Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office 1) .

These eight statements will be conducted in the morning and afternoon.

After the witness testimony is finished, the final pleadings proceeded by President Yoon are finalized, and all procedures of the disciplinary committee are completed.

However, in the case of Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office Seong-yoon Lee and Deputy Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong, the disciplinary committees are predicting that the attendance is uncertain.

The same is true of President Yoon's decision to make this judgment.

Nevertheless, President Yoon's side is focusing on keeping records of all processes, including witness adoption and non-show.

The same goes for the statements of the eight witnesses.

In particular, their testimony is recorded and left as a record.

General Yoon said that he often

left a statement in

meetings with special lawyers,

,

."

It is unlikely that the results predicted by Yun will change.

However, it seems clear that the accumulated series of all processes, records, and circumstances will serve as the basis for future disputes or historical judgments.