Home » News » Prosecutors of the central district prosecutors against the disciplinary action for the first time

Prosecutors of the central district prosecutors against the disciplinary action for the first time

Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol is on his way to work at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the morning of the 16th. The Prosecutor and Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of Justice imposed a two-month suspension on Yun. (Photo = Reporter Lee Han-hyung)-In response to the two-month suspension of the Prosecutors’ Disciplinary Committee against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office Vice President Prosecutors made a criticism statement saying that it was “serious damage to the rule of law.” This is the first group move within the prosecution after the disciplinary action against General Yoon was decided.

On the 16th, the vice-president prosecutors of the 35th Central District Prosecutors posted an article on the prosecution’s internal network,’Eprus’, saying, “We express deep concern and regret about the decision to disciplinary action against the prosecutor general.” It seriously undermines the political neutrality, independence and rule of law.”

He added, “Looking at a series of processes, not only the grounds for disciplinary action were unfair, but significant procedural defects existed in the entire disciplinary process from the formation of the Prosecutor’s Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of Justice to the resolution,” he said. “Sufficient procedural rights and defense rights promised by the Ministry of Justice are guaranteed He also pointed out that the’procedural process’ that the President emphasized was punished.

Earlier, the disciplinary committee decided on a suspension of two months against Yoon after an overnight discussion that continued from the day before dawn. The disciplinary committee explained that among the eight reasons Minister Chu requested disciplinary action, the disciplinary committee explained that the prestige of the decision was impaired, including the preparation and distribution of analysis documents by the court, interfering with the inspection and investigation related to the Channel A case, and improper words and actions regarding political neutrality.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.