Minister of Justice Han Dong-hoon will appear in person at the Constitutional Court on the 27th and appear in the public debate on the power dispute over the National Assembly's 'examination and complete deprivation' (completely deprived of the prosecution's investigative power).



Minister Han said today (21st), "I am concerned that a law with incorrect contents is made and implemented through wrong procedures with wrong intentions, causing serious harm to the public." As I said, the Minister will personally attend the hearing and explain it in detail."



Minister Han, who is the representative of the claimant for the power dispute adjudication, is scheduled to directly argue in front of the judges of the Constitutional Court on the day of the public pleadings that the legislation of 'checking and shutting down' is unreasonable.



Other claimants, including Supreme Prosecutor's Office Chief Prosecutor Kim Seon-hwa and the Ministry of Justice's Constitutional Issue Research TF Team Leader Kim Seok-woo, will also appear in the public hearings.



The issue in this case is summarized as whether the revision of the Prosecutor's Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act in April was an 'unconstitutional procedure' and whether the revised law contains 'unconstitutional content'.



The Ministry of Justice and the prosecution, who have requested a trial on authority dispute, claim that the Democratic Party unilaterally pushed for legislation, 'leaking a member disguised as a member of the party' and 'splitting the session', thereby blocking a reasonable opportunity for discussion.



It is the position that an anti-constitutional law was created that limits the investigation and prosecution functions of the prosecution and infringes on the basic rights of the people.



The National Assembly, on the other hand, has no provision in the Constitution to grant investigative powers to prosecutors.



The legislative process also claims that it did not violate the National Assembly Act.



The appointment of representatives and witnesses for both the Ministry of Justice and the National Assembly has also been completed.



On the Ministry of Justice, lawyer Il-won Kang, who served as a judge of the Constitutional Court, and others will present arguments, while In-ho Lee, a professor at Chung-Ang University Law School, appears as a witness and supports the logic.



The National Assembly, which appointed lawyer Noh Hee-beom, a former constitutional researcher, as a representative, selected Lee Hwang-hee, a professor at Sungkyunkwan University Law School, as a reference.



Dispute adjudication is a procedure in which the Constitutional Court makes a decision on the jurisdiction of the constitutional courts in case of disputes over the existence or scope of authority among state agencies.



If the National Assembly's act of enacting or amending laws becomes a problem, as in this case, not only defects in the legislative process, but also whether the law itself is unconstitutional can be reviewed.



All judges (9 judges) of the Constitutional Court hear, and if a majority (5 or more) of the judges agrees, a decision can be made to cite, dismiss, or dismiss.



Although there is no precedent, some argue that the consent of at least six judges is required to make a decision on the constitutionality of the law from a power dispute trial.



(Photo = Yonhap News)