"All 410 Cases of Trial Allegations"

The court's administration decided to disclose all the contents of the suspicion of abuse of judicial power and the judicial authority at the time of the chief justice of the Supreme Court just before Yang Seung-tae. The Supreme Court said: "In principle, we decided to publish 228 documents with the exception of 98 documents (182 if we add 84 duplicate documents) out of 410 records." However, the Supreme Court decided to make documents unreal for several days because of fear of personal information and the flight of privacy.

The Special Investigation Team of the Supreme Court, which had previously investigated alleged allegations, opened a PC from the Office of the Judicial Administration and recorded 410 documents, of which 98 have been published. The remaining documents were not disclosed because of "there is a problem such as the violation of privacy and not directly related to the suspicion".

However, on the 23rd, a meeting of court judges of different levels, the National Judicial Assembly, proposed to Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo to disclose unlisted records.

The same day, Chang Chang-hyun (64 years old), former chairman of the KMA, insisted that the judiciary review the plan to invalidate the prosecutor's success agreement and influences the Supreme Court.

President Ha said the day he confirmed the relevant documents during the reception of an investigation into the references to the special section 1 of the Central District Prosecutor's Office of Seoul investigating the suspicion.

According to President Ha, "in response to the new presidential plan of response and compression" drafted by the Supreme Administrative Court in January 2015, under the title "This should be underlined.

A successful completion contract is a contract that a client contracts to pay a certain amount to a lawyer during the trial. Successful compensation agreements are in principle valid, but if the amount is unreasonably excessive, it will be deemed invalid on the basis of good faith. However, on July 23, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the precedent and ruled that the contract for the success of the criminal case was a "legal act against the social order in civil law" and found void.

Jong Kee Hee [email protected]