Sunday , May 22 2022

[속보]Representatives of lawyers say that "the abuse of administrative law enforcement is in violation of the Constitution … Implications of Judges for Execution of Judgment" –


Entry 2018.11.19 16:19
| Revision 2018.11.19 17:22

At the 19th meeting of the Judicial Representative was held at the Institute for Research and Training Judges Goiang Citi, Gyeonggi Province.

The Judicial Council of the National Judicial Council, composed of court representatives at each level, issued a resolution that "it is necessary to examine the judgment of judges involved in allegations of abuse of the judicial authority".

The court meeting was held on June 19 at a second regular judicial meeting at the Goiang Citi Judicial Research and Training Institute, Gyeonggi Province, and voted on "our opinion on acts such as the violation of the trial". The judgments are as follows: "The court administration official discussed the adjudication of court proceedings with government officials on specific trials and warned of the preparation of written opinions or asked for a ruling on concrete content and directions by contacting the front court," I am aware of the fact that the act of criminal prosecution is a serious constitutional violation to be taken into account together with the procedure for the adjudication of the judgment, in addition to disciplinary proceedings. "

The meeting was attended by 114 out of 119 court representatives of the courts. There were 105 judges present at the verdict. Among them were 53 votes, 43 against and 9 abstentions, and the majority voted, and the resolution was adopted. Song Sung-iong, chief of the District Court in Suvon, who is in charge of the public announcement of the court meeting, said: "We have gathered opinions on prosecution proceedings, we should consider", but "it was not a huge move".

The court meeting said they were talking about 3 hours before the vote. "The Prosecution does not seek a procedure to end the criminal proceedings," the prosecutor said. "We do not call for the processing of a process to end the verdict," he said. It needs to be presented. "

On the other hand, the opponent said: "It is a high political act that talks about the criminal procedure for adjudication and it is not appropriate to engage in a political whirlwind." He said that pronouncing the verdict was inadequate for the National Assembly's duties. There was also a debate on whether there was a reason for ending the verdict and whether the court could invite the National Assembly to propose an end to immigration, even if there is reason to adjudicate.

The court conference did not specifically discuss what to do with the procedure for producing evidence of criminal proceedings. Song Seung-iong, judge, said: "The National Assembly should prosecute the verdict and follow the constitutional procedure." What the Special Prosecutor speaks specifically about is the separation of powers. "Among the judges who opposed the prosecution for ending the verdict at the center of civil society are six people, including Judge Kwon Soon-il, Lee Giu-jin, Judge Lee Min-cheol and Kim Min-soo.

On that day, the decisions of the judicial meeting shall not be transferred immediately to the National Assembly. This is because the Judicial Council is the advisory body of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court. The court meeting will forward the bill to the president of the Supreme Court of Justice, Kim Miung-sou, in the form of an electronic document.

Six judges, including Kwon Kwang-kwan, a district court judge, and Andong Assistance, asked the commission to launch the December 12th agenda, saying it should discuss the judge's ruling at another regular meeting through the internal court network. The intention is for the court to admit to people that it is an unconstitutional procedure, regardless of the existence of a law.

The Prosecution is still under investigation and it is unclear whether the Prosecution acts and that the proceedings against the accused against the judge are premature. However, the results of the meeting seem to reflect the voice that the court should demonstrate its willingness to self-promote in order to regain confidence in the unsuccessful judiciary.

Judges may be dismissed in writing in accordance with the process of the defendant for completing the proceedings of the National Assembly, unless constitutional independence is guaranteed and a punishment above the sentence is confirmed. Requests for proceedings for the termination of a judgment prescribe that "the execution of a duty violates the Constitution or the law". More than one-third of the deputies in the National Assembly 299 voted in favor of the proceedings for the adjudication of judges, and the Constitutional Court is expected to make the final decision if more than half of the members agree with the plenary session. After the hearing, the Constitutional Court will decide to dismiss six of the nine judges.

Choi Ji-sang (49 · Judicial and Training Research Institute), President of the Supreme Court in the northern part of Seoul,

Source link