hankyoreh

Former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl (Yonhap News)

Yoon Seok-youl, the leading presidential contender from the People Power Party (PPP), lost an administrative suit he had filed while serving as prosecutor general requesting the reversal of a disciplinary two-month suspension handed to him by the Ministry of Justice.

Yoon’s representatives immediately signaled their intent to appeal.

The 12th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court under judge Jeong Yong-seok ruled against the plaintiff Thursday in a case filed by Yoon against the Minister of Justice to request the reversal of this disciplinary action.

In its decision, the court recognized three of the four grounds cited for Yoon’s disciplinary action as being valid, namely his ordering of the drafting and distribution of a document allegedly calling for the monitoring of judges in major cases; obstructing an inspection of a case involving Channel A; and obstructing an investigation into the Channel A case.

The fourth accusation of violating his obligation to remain politically neutral, however, was determined not to be a legitimate basis for disciplinary action.

Regarding the accusations about ordering the drafting and distributing a document on the monitoring of judges, the court noted, “The judiciary analysis document drafted by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office investigation intelligence policy office on Mr. Yoon’s orders included a substantial amount of personal information gathered in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.”

It went on to say that the “decision not only to not delete or revise the personal information gathered once the document had been reported, but actually to order its delivery to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office (SPO) Anti-Corruption & Organized Crimes Department and Department of National Security, Election and Labor, was in violation of the State Public Official Act and prosecutors’ office behavioral guidelines for public officials and thereby constituted [legitimate] grounds for disciplinary action according to the Act on Discipline of Prosecutors.”

The court also recognized legitimate grounds for disciplinary action in the accusations concerning obstruction of an inspection and investigation of the Channel A case, which involved alleged collusion between the prosecutors and media.

In particular, it cited Yoon’s actions of halting the SPO Inspection Department’s lawfully initiated inspection and ordering an investigation by the SPO Human Rights Policy Office, and ordering the convening of an expert investigation advisory group even after investigation direction authority had been assigned to the SPO department directors’ council due to the involvement of Han Dong-hoon, a chief prosecutor and one of Yoon’s closest associates.

The court did not recognize legitimate grounds for disciplinary action in Yoon’s violation of political neutrality with his remarks during a parliamentary audit in October 2020. It concluded that based on the standards at the time, his remarks during the audit could not be seen in and of themselves as a clear indication that he planned to pursue a political career after leaving his position as prosecutor general.

During the parliamentary audit in October 2020, Yoon alluded to possibly pursuing a political career after leaving his job, saying that he would “find a way to serve the public.” His remarks touched off a furor at the time, with many viewing them as a violation of the prosecutors’ obligation to maintain political neutrality.

The court also said when the grounds cited for disciplinary action against Yoon were viewed as a whole, the two-month suspension was, in fact, a light punishment.

“The recognized grounds for disciplinary action were severe improprieties that compromised the lawfulness and fairness of prosecutorial affairs,” the court said.

“Based on the sentencing standards stipulated in the guidelines for crimes and improprieties by prosecution officials, [the grounds] allow for disciplinary action at the level of dismissal or higher. A suspension of two months is more lenient than the lower limit for disciplinary action,” it concluded.

Meeting with reporters after the ruling that day, Yoon’s attorneys Lee Wan-gyu and Son Gyeong-sik announced plans to appeal.

“We’ll be able to say more once we’ve examined the decision in detail for inadequate evidence during the argument process and misunderstandings by the court,” they said, adding that they intended to “make the same arguments as before with the appeal and anything after that.”

Yoon received a two-month suspension from his duties as prosecutor general on Dec. 16 of last year, while Choo Mi-ae was serving as Minister of Justice. In response, Yoon requested a suspension of the disciplinary action with the Seoul Administration Court the following day, while also filing suit to request the reversal of the disciplinary action decision itself.

The request to suspend the disciplinary action was accepted eight days later, on Dec. 24. The disciplinary action had been suspended until such time as a decision was made in a first trial on the merits of the case.

By Choi Min-young, staff reporter

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]