Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon gave an incorrect reply to a dilemma from a member of the National Assembly in the Nationwide Assembly and corrected it. In response to the query regardless of whether it was just a make a difference of building corrections, Minister Han once again questioned what I really should do without having corrections, and then the part of answering is once more controversial. It was an perspective that was mainly because he manufactured the correction without the need of expressing any remorse or apology even following giving the incorrect solution.
Minister Han built this statement whilst present at the plenary meeting of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly on the afternoon of the 29th and volunteered to speak in advance of the concern of pending problems. Minister Han claimed, “There are some items that I have to accurate at the very last assembly (Judgment Committee on the 24th) concerning queries about pending issues. It is legitimate that there is no regulation on appointment mainly because mistake, but there is a decree of the Ministry of Justice called ‘lawyer compensation regulation’ which is available to the general public.” Minister Han reported, “I would like to advise you that the payment for the appointment method has been resolved appropriately .” “I will correct it.” He stated there is no payment rule.
In the Judiciary Committee’s finances settlement review on the 24th, Kim Seung-gained, a member of the Democratic Get together of Korea, responded to a minister’s reply in the course of action of inquiring about the normal of pay in relation to the Ministry of Justice. the appointment of previous Constitutional Choose Kang Il-won as a litigation agent for the meant dispute over authority. At the time, when Consultant Kim requested, ‘Are there any guidelines or standards for the Ministry of Justice for the appointment of an outside lawyer or for the volume of the charge?’ Minister Han mentioned, “There is no guideline on who really should be appointed as a particular person. legal professional.” “There is no standard for calculating the amount of remuneration.” he replied. When Consultant Kim Seung-won said, ‘As considerably as I know, any community firm has grounds for which includes the sum of compensation for appointing a law firm,’ Minister Han requested, “What kind of public business does it have?” Representative Kim asked yet again, ‘Are you expressing that there are benchmarks for all community institutions, including the National Tax Company, and the amount of remuneration for attorneys, but the Ministry of Justice does not solution again and again.
When Representative Kim asked, ‘Why not, then who calculates and sets the amount of money?’, Minister Han replied, “Typically, if the volume of contracts is greater than the former precedent and the amount of contracts additional than the prior precedent, it requires back that.” The closing final decision was made by the Minister himself.
A member of the Judiciary Committee of the Democratic Social gathering of Korea strongly criticized this. Minjoo Get together lawmaker Lee Tan-hee pointed out to Minister Han, “I am sorry for the section you just corrected.” “What are you sorry for?” asked the minister. Then, on the 24th, Assemblywoman Lee Tan-hee offered the Judiciary Committee Q&A document and explained, “I did not just say, ‘I will not know just, I know it doesn’t exist,’ but he claimed. than a few occasions and say, ‘I’m performing it in accordance to the past precedent and the sizing of the contracts.’ Is this one thing that can be corrected and moved ahead?” he questioned.
Then, Minister Han claimed, “I built a slip-up by mistake,” and questioned once more, “I have to right it, so what need to I do?”
Representative Lee claimed, “I considered the minister’s comments ended up impromptu, but I in fact said factors that had been various from the truth of the matter three situations and I reported I had to do it in accordance to different criteria. In response, Minister Han described, “The investigation on the pending issues at the time has been carried out in an unscheduled condition.” When he seen that it was not something that should really be handed on, a minister claimed, “I corrected it with no going above it.”
Representative Lee also disagreed with a minister’s reviews on the 28th of past month that he would submit components to clarify the protocol (work guide) relevant to the Ministry of Justice’s personnel verification process, but explained, “I can’t give the guide itself.” When Agent Lee asked, ‘Is there a guide for do the job?’ Minister Han explained, “Of system, there is a protocol.” Is there any other way to confirm it aside from the minister’s responses? When he was questioned all over again to present it, a minister reported, “I am telling you with my accountability, what more or extra?” The manual by itself has specialized info, so if it is produced, you can know this and get ready for it, and there might be different noises.”
Assemblyman Lee mentioned, “I have now answered on July 28. Aren’t the front and back of the words and phrases various? ” he mentioned, “I will get ready resources that I can explain.” (As answered) Put together the materials,” he urged. Minister Han replied, “I will put together the components.”
At the same time, in relation to the subversion of the ‘Enforcement Inspection Act’, these kinds of as the amended Prosecutor’s Workplace Act and the Legal Treatment Act, into an enforcement decree, Consultant Lee introduced in detail the opinions which brought about a contradiction in the interpretation of Minister Han. On April 15, in entrance of reporters, Minister Han reported that right after the regulation was handed, it was a ‘law to deprive the investigative function’, and on May well 19, it was a ‘law that decreased the power of investigation in big’. Lee Tan-hee explained, “It is a regulation that has presently been diminished to a legislation that has currently been banned as one of the six key crimes.”
When Consultant Lee up coming questioned ‘Have you consulted with the Place of work of the President?’, Minister Han replied, “I did that with the Office of the Legal Secretariat of the President.” Nonetheless, when requested whether in advance of June 27, when Minister Han manufactured the request for a ruling on the ability dispute, Minister Han refused to reply, declaring, “It is not correct to expose so numerous details about the interior communication system with the President. Office environment.” Questioned to ask for facts relating to ‘when and how every administrative section, such as the presidential business office, consulted all through the legislative approach, the timing of the session, and the get-togethers associated,’ Minister Han replied, “I will reviewing it.”
