Court: "Yoon Seok-yeol's suspension is effectively dismissal... Must not blindly follow the Minister of Justice"

Reviewing the Grounds for Partial Approval of the Suspension of Execution Application

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The key reason the court accepted the suspension of execution requested by Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol on the 1st was that "suspension of duty causes irreparable harm." The logic was that excluding Prosecutor General Yoon, whose term lasts until July next year, from his duties is practically equivalent to dismissal.

The Administrative Court of Seoul, Administrative Division 4 (Chief Judge) partially accepted Yoon's request for suspension of execution on the same day, stating, "Suspension of duty corresponds to tangible and intangible damages that cannot be endured by monetary compensation," and "Even if one wins the main lawsuit, the damage cannot be restored." The court added that "there is an urgent need to seek suspension of effect" based on this judgment.

The bench defined Yoon's suspension from duty as practically equivalent to dismissal. It also judged that the result of the suspension disregards the purpose of related laws such as the Prosecutors' Office Act, which sets the Prosecutor General's term as a single two-year term to guarantee the independence and political neutrality of the prosecution.

The Ministry of Justice argued during the hearing the day before that "If Prosecutor General Yoon continues to perform his duties and oversee prosecutorial affairs, the exercise of fair prosecutorial power and inspection authority could be threatened." However, the court saw that the disruption and confusion caused by suspending Yoon from duty would be greater. In effect, it accepted Yoon's side's position that "Excluding the Prosecutor General from duty should be viewed not merely as a personal matter but from the perspective of public welfare."

The court also rejected the Ministry of Justice's claim that "There is no benefit to the lawsuit as the disciplinary committee is imminent." The court said, "Yoon is guaranteed the right to defense in the disciplinary process," and "At the very least, it is reasonable that Yoon's suspension from duty be decided after sufficient deliberation in the disciplinary process." It added, "Even if the grounds for disciplining Yoon are recognized and a severe punishment is imposed, his duties will be maintained until then," and "It cannot be concluded that the integrity of duty is seriously impaired."

The court also made an indirect judgment regarding the "subordinate controversy" that arose when Yoon said at the National Assembly audit, "The Prosecutor General is not a subordinate of the Minister of Justice." The bench pointed out, "It is natural that prosecutors obey the direction and supervision of the Minister of Justice," but "If the Prosecutor General blindly obeys the Minister of Justice, the independence and political neutrality of prosecutors cannot be maintained." It further ruled, "The exercise of specific direction and supervision rights by the Minister of Justice over the prosecution, especially the Prosecutor General, should be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the purposes of upholding legal order, protecting human rights, and democratic control."

Earlier, on the 24th of last month, Minister Choo detected six allegations of misconduct against Prosecutor General Yoon, including "illegal surveillance of the judiciary" during the Ministry of Justice's inspection, requested disciplinary action against Yoon, and suspended his duties. This was an unprecedented event in constitutional history where a sitting Prosecutor General's duties were suspended. In response, Yoon applied to the court the next day for suspension of execution of this suspension order.