Decision on Suspension of Execution Application May Be Made as Early as Today
The hearing on the suspension of the enforcement of the suspension order against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol was held on the 30th at the Seoul Administrative Court. On this day, Yoon's legal representatives, lawyers Lee Wan-gyu (left) and Lee Seok-woong (center), are entering the court. Photo by Moon Ho-nam munonam@
[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The hearing on the injunction request filed by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol against Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae concluded in about an hour.
The Administrative Division 4 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Mi-yeon Jo) finished the hearing on Prosecutor General Yoon's request for suspension of duty at around 12:10 PM on the 30th. After hearing both parties' opinions, the court will review the submitted materials and decide whether to grant the injunction. If the court determines that the suspension of duty causes "irreparable harm" to Prosecutor General Yoon, it is likely to accept his request. The result may be announced as early as late afternoon on the same day.
The hearing was held behind closed doors starting at 11 AM. It is known that the focus was on whether the suspension decision was procedurally justified. There was also a dispute over whether the collection of information on the main case trial panel among the six allegations against Prosecutor General Yoon constitutes "illegal surveillance."
Prosecutor General Yoon did not appear in court that day. Instead, his legal representatives, lawyers Wan-gyu Lee (Dongin Law Firm) and Seok-woong Lee (Seowoo Law Firm), attended. After the hearing, Yoon's side stated, "We sufficiently explained the reasons why the suspension of duty should be halted," adding, "We explained to the court that this issue causes not only personal damage to Prosecutor General Yoon but also irreparable harm in terms of public interest."
Regarding the court surveillance documents, Yoon's side argued, "As prosecutors who must undergo court trials, understanding judges' trial management styles is part of litigation work." They added, "The documents were not accumulated and managed for the purpose of continuous monitoring of judges, and since they were unusually created for reference in February this year and then discarded, it is difficult to call it surveillance."
The hearing on the suspension of the enforcement of the job suspension order against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol was held on the 30th at the Seoul Administrative Court. On this day, lawyer Lee Ok-hyung, the legal representative of Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae, is entering the court. / Photo by Moon Ho-nam munonam@
On the respondent side, Minister Chu's legal representative, lawyer Ok-hyung Lee (Gonggam Law Firm), appeared. After the hearing, Lee told reporters, "The arguments were intense," but pointed out, "The applicant (Prosecutor General Yoon) emphasized parts that are not subject to the court's judgment on the injunction request, such as the illegality of the disciplinary action." He argued, "There is no irreparable harm caused to Prosecutor General Yoon by the suspension of duty," and insisted, "The request should be dismissed."
Regarding the court surveillance documents, he explained, "It is a clear illegal act and the means were inappropriate," adding, "We requested the court to verify when Prosecutor General Yoon, as the ultimate person responsible, was informed of the surveillance documents, when they were first created, and whether similar documents had been created before."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
