The dismissal is a 'decision made without judgment on the merits if the litigation requirements are not met', and it is judged that there is no profit to be gained from the lawsuit because candidate Yoon has already resigned from the office of prosecutor general.
With today's sentencing, most of the first-instance judgments of the lawsuit filed by Candidate Yoon at the time have been completed, and the unprecedented disciplinary phase of the prosecutor general that heated up the Republic of Korea last year has come to an end.
Candidate Yoon, who was then the Prosecutor General, stepped down from his position as president amid a disciplinary case led by former Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae and is now a candidate for the People's Power presidential election.
From the disciplinary case to today's first trial, we traced the footsteps of the past year.
Former Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae took disciplinary action against then Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol on November 24 last year while he was serving as minister and took measures to exclude him from duties. At an emergency briefing in the press office at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, former Minister Choo announced, "The Ministry of Justice directly inspected various allegations of misconduct against the Prosecutor General, and as a result, confirmed a number of serious and serious misconduct allegations."
Former Minister Chu cited five reasons for disciplinary action against former President Yoon. 'Inappropriate contact with media outlets' and 'Illegal inspection of the courts in major cases such as the case of former Minister Cho Kuk' The reasons for the disciplinary action include 'transaction of information related to inspection', 'violation of the duty to cooperate in the process of investigation in person with the president and obstruction of inspection', and 'serious damage to the dignity and credibility of the prosecutor-general in relation to political neutrality'.
After Choo's announcement, ex-President Yoon's side sent a text message to the reporters in the name of the Supreme Prosecutor's Office and said, "In order to protect the political neutrality of the prosecution, I have done my duty as the Prosecutor General without any shame. We will respond,” he said. He refuted all the five reasons for disciplinary action put forward by former Minister Chu, and foreshadowed legal action. Today's sentence by the Seoul Administrative Court is the result of a legal battle following the unprecedented disciplinary action of the Prosecutor General that shook the Republic of Korea at the time.
On November 25, last year, the very day after the request for disciplinary action and exclusion of duties, Yoon's side applied for an injunction with the court to suspend the effect of the suspension of the office of the Prosecutor General. On the next day, the 26th, a lawsuit was also filed to cancel the suspension of duties.
Former Minister Choo, who was the one who issued the disciplinary action, also counterattacked. First of all, the Ministry of Justice requested the Supreme Prosecutor's Office to investigate the former President Yoon's investigation into the 'suspicion of illegal inspection by a judge', which was raised as one of the reasons for disciplinary action. However, after that, the situation turned in favor of former Secretary-General Yoon, not of Choo. At the Inspection Committee of the Ministry of Justice held on the morning of December 1, it was concluded that both the request for disciplinary action and the exclusion of former President Yoon from duties were inappropriate.
As the court accepted the provisional disposition to suspend the effect of the suspension of duties raised by former President Yoon, he returned to the Supreme Prosecutor's Office one week after his exclusion from his duties. The court said, "If the prosecutor general is obedient to the command and supervision of the Minister of Justice, the independence and political neutrality of prosecutors cannot be maintained." It has been thoroughly verified and once appointed, the tenure is guaranteed so that you can work to your heart's content." While the controversy over whether the disciplinary action was appropriate eventually went to the court, former President Yoon was the first to win one.
About two weeks later, on December 16, the Ministry of Justice held the Prosecutor's Disciplinary Committee and decided to impose a two-month suspension on former President Yoon. Among the six charges of disciplinary action against former President Yoon, four of them were recognized, including 'Inspection of the Tribunal', 'Channel A Case Inspection', 'Suspect of Obstructing the Investigation' and 'Damage of Political Neutrality'. As President Moon approved the results of disciplinary action against former President Yoon, reported by Minister Choo, the disciplinary action became a reality. Former President Yoon, who was suspended again within a week of returning to work as president, again applied for an injunction to suspend the execution of disciplinary measures and took legal action. going to
The 12th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court will make a decision on December 24, eight days later, on the application for injunction filed by former President Yoon. It was a decision to effectively suspend the effect of the two-month suspension of former President Yoon. It was Yun's second victory.
The repercussions were great when repeated disciplinary actions were stopped by the courts twice in a row. President Moon said in a briefing by a spokesman for the Blue House, "I respect the court's decision." As former Minister Chu, who suffered 'two consecutive losses', even the president apologized, putting him in a more difficult position.
At that time, the two judgments of the Seoul Administrative Court were in favor of former President Yoon. The next round was the 'constitutional complaint of the Prosecutor's Discipline Act' filed by former President Yoon. Yoon's logic was that the provision of the Prosecutor's Disciplinary Act, which required former Minister Choo to form a Prosecutor's Disciplinary Committee led by the Minister of Justice, infringed upon his right to hold public office.
However, the Constitutional Court made a dismissal decision on June 24 with the opinion of 7 judges (dismissal) to 1 (principal hearing). It was concluded that the constitutional complaint itself was inappropriate, saying, "The violation of the basic rights claimed by the petitioner only occurs when disciplinary measures such as dismissal, dismissal, or suspension are taken." In response, former President Yoon said, "We respect the decision of the Constitutional Court." Rather than a constitutional complaint raised to point out the procedural problem of disciplinary action, it seems that former President Yoon's side decided that the key to ending this controversy was to have the judiciary acknowledge that the disciplinary action itself was illegal.
However, the following judgment was different from the wishes of former President Yoon. The 12th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Judge Jeong Yong-seok) defeated the original court case on October 14, requesting that the disciplinary measure of two months of suspension of suspension be canceled by former President Yoon. The Ministry of Justice decided to maintain the discipline, saying that three of the four reasons for disciplinary action against former President Yoon were recognized.
The court found that the disciplinary reasons raised by the Ministry of Justice, such as 'writing and distributing inspection documents by the court' and 'interfering with the inspection and investigation of Channel A case', were recognized. Regarding the documents for inspection by the trial court, former President Yoon pointed out, "Even though the report was received after the preparation of the analysis document was completed, the illegally collected personal information was not deleted or corrected, but rather ordered to be delivered to the Anti-Corruption and Public Investigation Division of the Supreme Prosecutor's Office." Most of the arguments of former President Yoon were rejected.
In particular, the court also stated that, regarding the two-month suspension given to former President Yoon, "Disciplinary action beyond dismissal is possible for recognized disciplinary reasons." It was a conclusion that was markedly different from that judged by the two judges of the same Seoul Administrative Court in the disciplinary phase last year. As the controversy grew, Chief Justice Bae Bae-yeol of the Seoul Administrative Court said at a state audit by the Legislative and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly held on October 15, "I think the high court or the Supreme Court will finally settle the matter."
Most of the first trial, which had been going on for more than a year, was completed as the result of the lawsuit to cancel the suspension of execution of duties filed by former President Yoon was dismissed.
The court ruled that there was no profit to be gained from the lawsuit because Yoon had already resigned from the office of prosecutor general, but it seems that Yoon, who has now become a presidential candidate rather than the prosecutor general, has a political goal that he wants to achieve separately.
Previously, former President Yoon appealed against the decision of the 12th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court in October to maintain the suspension of two months.
It seems to be an attempt to prove to himself that he had already publicly stated, "As the Prosecutor General, I had no shame" and at the same time to be recognized as a legal fact.
And it seems likely that this will continue regardless of the outcome of next year's presidential election.
If the appeal proceeds to the final judgment, it is highly likely that the final legal judgment will not be reached until March 9, next year, the 20th presidential election day.
And the results are likely to be politically interpreted and criticized by either side of the fiercely contested giant bipartisan party.
The battle that has been going on for over a year over the unprecedented disciplinary action against the Prosecutor General does not seem to end until the final decision of the judiciary is made.
(Planning: SBS Digital News Bureau / Design: Jinyoung Choi)