Case Explained:This article breaks down the legal background, charges, and implications of Case Explained: A worrisome situation is unfolding as the law distortion crime and the court are implemented, with C.. – Legal Perspective
A worrisome situation is unfolding as the law distortion crime and the court are implemented, with Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, who convicted President Lee Jae Myung of the crime, subject to the first charge of law distortion. There are many voices in the legal profession that “the system should be reorganized so as not to politically attack judicial proceedings.”
On the 12th, the Supreme Court’s Office of Court Administration held a meeting of court chiefs across the country for two days and one night at Jecheon Forest Resom Resort in Chungcheongbuk-do from 2 p.m. Instead of Justice Park Young-jae, who resigned as the head of the court administration in opposition to the passage of the three judicial laws, Kim Si-chul, the head of the Judicial Research and Training Institute, attended the meeting.
Participants held a four-hour discussion on “follow-up measures to reform the judicial system” and “support measures for criminal judges according to law distortion.”
The legal profession predicts that all judges and prosecutors will be directed to the arrow of law distortion, starting with Chief Justice Cho. A complaint against senior judges Ji Gwi-yeon and Woo In-sung, who took over the case of former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s couple, has already been announced for distortion of the law.
The crime of distortion of the law stipulates that if the law is distorted and applied in criminal cases, it is punished with up to 10 years in prison and 10 years of suspension of qualification. Concerns have been raised that the criteria for “distortion of the law” are ambiguous, causing retaliatory complaints and accusations against judges and making it impossible to interpret the law that overturns existing precedents.
A senior judge in the Seoul metropolitan area said, “No matter how you conduct the investigation and trial, there will be no choice but to have complaints, and if you are accused for this reason, you will be investigated and tried, and there will be a number of good victims.” “The Democratic Party of Korea would have introduced it because the judiciary is not reliable, but the opposition party can also use the law distortion crime.”
Another judge also complained, “If the problem is that Chief Justice Cho handled President Lee’s case in a hasty manner, a quick trial is absolutely impossible in the future,” adding, “If the prosecution fails to prosecute the charges for law distortion, will the prosecution also file a complaint?”
There are also concerns about misuse of the court, which stipulates that the Constitutional Court can cancel the final ruling if the court violates basic rights during the trial. Yang Moon-seok of the Democratic Party (Ansan Gap, Gyeonggi Province), who was found guilty of loan fraud by the Supreme Court and deprived of his parliamentary seat, said, “If the Supreme Court ruling overlooks the basic rights of our family, we will seek the judgment of the Constitutional Court.”
A judge-turned-lawyer pointed out, “As soon as the court was implemented, the typical ‘politician’s objection to the trial’, which was feared to be a side effect, began explicitly.” “Although the Constitutional Court will reject the case, distrust in the effectiveness of the court will not disappear easily.”
The Constitutional Court said a total of 11 cases were filed by 2 p.m. after the court went into effect at 0:00 p.m. on the 12th. The first case is the case of Mohammed, a Syrian who was deported 11 years after coming to Korea to escape civil war. In order to avoid deportation, a lawsuit was filed to cancel the forced eviction order, but even the Supreme Court was dismissed. However, the legal community observes that there is little possibility that Mohammed’s case will be accepted about two months after the Supreme Court’s final ruling. Tribunal members must apply within 30 days of the final judgment.
There are also concerns that the Constitutional Court’s decision on limited unconstitutionality could function excessively due to the members of the court. Limited unconstitutionality refers to the Constitutional Court’s decision to change the law, which does not invalidate the legal provision itself as unconstitutional, but declares that the provision violates the Constitution only if it is interpreted in a specific direction. Until now, the Supreme Court has maintained the attitude that legal interpretation is the unique authority of the judiciary, and court judgment is not necessarily bound by the Constitutional Court’s limited unconstitutionality.
However, if the court does not accept the Constitutional Court’s decision on limited unconstitutionality in the future, it could be subject to the court. For this reason, some observers say that the Constitutional Court could actively increase the number of limited unconstitutional decisions. In addition, on the 4th of last month, the Democratic Party of Korea proposed an amendment to the Constitutional Court Act, which provides an explicit basis for the binding power of the limited unconstitutional decision.
[Reporter Park Hongjoo / Reporter Kang Minwoo]