It was found that the Prosecutor's Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of Justice decided that it was "overpassing the duty of the prosecutor", saying, "It is to put a political color on the investigation in charge" after Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol's remarks on'service after retirement'.



According to the disciplinary action of the disciplinary committee announced today (17th), the disciplinary committee made such a statement in its judgment on the four reasons for disciplinary action admitted to General Yoon.



There are four charges admitted by the disciplinary committee: ▲ writing and distributing suspicious documents for the judiciary's inspection ▲ interfering with the inspection related to the Channel A case ▲ interfering with the investigation related to the Channel A case ▲ damaging political neutrality.



Regarding the damage to political neutrality, the disciplinary committee presupposes that "whether or not a disciplinary suspect will engage in political activities after retirement is entirely up to the disciplinary suspects to choose". Made it more unreliable."



He pointed out, "This was to give political color to the investigation conducted by the disciplinary accused, and as a result, it was a matter of causing the same suspicion to many prosecutors in charge of the investigation."



After making such a judgment, the disciplinary committee wrote, "It has gone beyond the duty of a prosecutor, which in any case should not be overcome."



Regarding the so-called'judges' suspicion documents', the disciplinary committee said, "The act of collecting and distributing personal information of judges who have a lot of potential for abuse will shrink the judges who have to face criticism of public opinion on a daily basis, and as a result, the entire judge society is not healthy. "It has a very bad effect, which makes you need more courage to make a good judgment."



The disciplinary committee, in particular, for the part where the document states that'the parent judge was included in the list of judges who caused the water', said,'The prosecutors at the trial secured in the trial records or the so-called'Judongdan' investigation team secured the list of judges that caused the water during the investigation. He pointed out that the information was provided as it was to the Office of the Investigation and Information Policy Office."



The disciplinary committee criticized the charge of interfering with the surveillance of the Channel A case, saying, "The opposite of what it was just a few years ago, we reproduced the appearances of the bosses at the time, which prevented the investigation of the NIS comment."



He also stated, "Because it was a case related to a close friend, I insisted on convening a professional investigation advisory group even though I had a legal obligation to avoid it myself." He stated, "If you were a disciplinary suspect who was investigating the NIS comment, something you would never have done."



At the same time, the Channel A incident was reported in the media on April 7th after the case of Channel A was reported in the media, despite the close relationship that Yoon communicated with Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon about 2,700 times by phone call or Kakao Talk message. It was indicated that he had violated the duty to evade the'Code of Conduct for Public Officials' by exchanging 110 communications over the past 8 days.



However, in response to the disciplinary committee's judgment on Yangjeong, one prosecution official said, "It means that Yangjeong was judged based on assumptions and various assumptions that were not concretely confirmed facts. Can the prosecutor general of a country be disciplined and give such a poor reason? Criticized.



The disciplinary committee decided not to disciplinary action, although allegations of meeting with media companies and refusal to comply with the Ministry of Justice's inspection were recognized as grounds for disciplinary action.



Regarding the reason, the disciplinary committee said, "The background, purpose, and content of the conversation between the suspect and the owner of the disciplinary business were not clearly identified, and the case related to the owner was at the time when the investigation was terminated, and the relevance to other criminal cases was not clear. Etc."



As for the non-compliance with the inspection, it was judged that it was not desirable to take this part as a problem and take a disciplinary action.



(Photo = Yonhap News)