Candidate Seok-Jun Oh, Supreme Court Justice. yunhap news.
The hearing of Supreme Court Justice Oh Seok-jun, who was appointed as the first Supreme Court Justice of the Yoon Seok-yeol administration, will be held on the 28th. At the hearing, the close relationship between Candidate Oh and President Yoon Seok-yeol and trends in past judgments are expected to emerge as key issues.
Seok-Jun Oh “I attended the wedding of the former member, but I have never met Kun-Hee Kim and Hak-Kwan Yoon.”
yunhap news
The Democratic Party of Korea is likely to launch an offensive over the close relationship between Candidate Oh and President Yoon. Candidate Oh is a graduate of Seoul National University’s Law Department, class 84, and is a one-year junior at the same school as President Yoon. Candidate Oh said in a written response to the National Assembly, “I am not particularly close with the president.” He said, “We knew each other for one year in college, so we knew each other while studying at the library.
However, from the establishment of the Special Prosecutor’s Office in December 2016 to just before being appointed as the Prosecutor General in July 2019, he said, “I remember meeting President Yoon two or three times. can’t,” he explained. He continued, “I have not met since President Yoon’s appointment as the Prosecutor General in July 2019,” he added.
Candidate Oh said, “I attended President Yoon’s wedding.” However, when asked if he had ever met Kim Kun-hee apart from the president, he replied, “No.” At the inauguration ceremony of President Yoon, he said, “I received an official invitation and attended with other Supreme Court justices, including the Chief Administrative Officer of the Court, and the Chief Justice.” He explained that there have been no phone calls or meetings with President Yoon or the so-called ‘Hack-Kwan Yoon’ since the presidential election this year.
A particularly harsh standard for the weak? “We need to comprehensively evaluate other judgments.”
yunhap news
There seems to be an onslaught of opposition parties even over Oh’s past rulings. Candidate Oh ruled that the disposition of the Susu Bus Company, which fired a bus driver who had worked for 17 years, was justified in 2011 for embezzling 800 won of transportation revenue. In 2013, he ruled that the level of disciplinary (dismissal) of a prosecutor who received entertainment worth 850,000 won from his lawyer was severe and canceled. Opposition parties criticized him as “a person with an unfair judgment and outdated values.”
Candidate Oh’s side explained, “Considering the labor-management agreement that there is no room for disciplinary action other than dismissal, regardless of how large or small the amount of money embezzled from transportation proceeds,” explained the decision to approve the dismissal of the bus driver. Regarding the prosecutor’s decision to cancel his dismissal, “According to the disciplinary action standards of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office at the time before the Enforcement of the Improper Graft Act came into force, even if job relatedness is recognized, any bribery or entertainment between 100,000 won and less than 1 million won might be subject to disciplinary action ranging from reprimand to suspension. It was also unclear whether the reception of entertainment at the time was related to the job.”
Candidate Oh is expected to respond to the opposition’s offensive by emphasizing that he has also presented several judgments to protect the socially disadvantaged and minorities. The judgment presented by Candidate Oh’s side was △the Seoul Administrative Court ruling that it was illegal to refuse to provide social welfare services to the disabled just because she was not a recipient of basic livelihoods (Sentenced on January 28, 2011); The decision of the Seoul Administrative Court, which ruled that the unilateral dismissal of a broadcasting company was unfair (Sentenced on Oct. 8, 2010), and the decision of the Seoul Administrative Court (decided on Aug. 12, 2011) that deemed that the dismissal of a male boss who had sexually harassed at work was justified.
“You can request facts or documents from the court, judges and investigative agencies related to the investigation.”
Judges including Yoo Nam-seok, President of the Constitutional Court, are seated at the ‘open pleadings on the death penalty case of constitutional complaints’ held at the Supreme Court of the Constitutional Court. Reporter Park Jong-min
He also expressed his position on issues that are becoming social issues. Regarding the death penalty, he said, “I personally do not support the death penalty, and if the death penalty has already been executed, even if there is a mistake, it is irreversible. Regarding the controversy over the existence of the National Security Act, he said, “It is an area for legislative decisions to be made by the National Assembly reflecting the will of the people.” empowered
Regarding the abolition of the abortion crime, he said, “The Constitutional Court recently made a decision that is inconsistent with the constitution regarding the scope of abortion, etc., so it should be respected.” We should try to find a balance between the right to make decisions and the right to life of the fetus.” Regarding the lower age limit for expedited juveniles, he said, “I think there is something to listen to,” but “If we lower the (age of criminal responsibility) all at once, there is a risk that even boys who are hard to believe that they have actual responsibility will be subject to criminal punishment. I think the side effects can be huge.” “In the end, it is to prevent and prevent juvenile crime, which is a part that can be achieved with sufficient education and education for boys,” he said.
Regarding the controversy over the neutralization of the law through the Presidential Decree, such as the establishment of a police station and the personnel information management group, as well as the enforcement ordinance of the Ministry of Justice’s ‘Inspector Uniform’ (Reinstatement of Prosecutor’s Investigation Authority) It will,” he said in a principled position. Regarding the act of a prosecutor frequently providing information on the contents of an investigation once morest a judge to the Court Administration Office, it is said that “in accordance with the Judicial Disciplinary Act, the court may inquire regarding the facts or request the submission of documents to public institutions for investigations into the disciplinary action of judges. “I think that the investigation agency can provide relevant data within the scope of necessity and relevance without hindrance to investigation work,” he said. Whether he was aware of the controversy over leaking of investigation secrets by Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok, he drew a line saying, “It is not appropriate to express an opinion on a specific case.”
