Former Chief Justice Yang's Trial Resumes Today
Former Director Lim's Trial Starts Next Month on the 2nd
Recently, 5 Current and Former Judges Acquitted
Court Rules Prosecutor's 'Trial Interference' Charge
Cannot Lead to Criminal Punishment for Abuse of Power
If So, Prosecutor's Indictment Shaken
[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The trials of former Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae and former Deputy Chief Im Jong-heon of the Judicial Administration Office, who have been identified as the pinnacle figures in the judicial administration abuse scandal, have resumed. The trial of former Chief Justice Yang is scheduled for 2 p.m. on the 21st, and the trial of former Deputy Chief Im is set for the 2nd of next month. The trial of former Chief Justice Yang, which began in February last year, had been proceeding steadily once or twice a week but was suspended after December last year when Yang underwent lung cancer surgery. In the case of former Deputy Chief Im, the trial was halted due to a request to disqualify the presiding judges, but this request was dismissed from the first trial to the Supreme Court, and a recent date has been set.
The resumed trials are expected to see significant changes compared to before the suspension. This is because five current and former judges involved in the judicial scandal have recently been acquitted in the first trial. Notably, the court ruled during sentencing that interference in trials included in the prosecution's charges cannot be criminally punished under abuse of authority. If this logic is applied, many of the charges against former Chief Justice Yang and former Deputy Chief Im could be significantly undermined.
The core charge against former Chief Justice Yang and former Deputy Chief Im is 'abuse of authority to obstruct the exercise of rights.' They are suspected of abusing their authority by intervening in various trials, including forced labor compensation cases, to form a favorable relationship with the Blue House. The crime of abuse of authority is established when a public official 'abuses authority' to make a subordinate perform 'an unnecessary act' or causes 'an obstruction to the exercise of rights.'
However, through previous rulings on the judicial scandal cases, the court interpreted that the abuse of authority charge applied by the prosecution cannot be used to criminally punish trial interference. On the 14th, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 25 (Presiding Judge Song In-kwon) acquitted former Seoul High Court Judge Im Seong-geun, who was charged with abuse of authority, ruling that he did not have the official authority to intervene in frontline trials. The court held that the authority to interfere with the independent trials guaranteed by the Constitution does not exist for judicial administrators, so the abuse of authority charge itself cannot be established. The court also stated, "Even if there was trial interference, frontline judges made independent decisions," and "the causal relationship between trial interference and actual trial work was severed." This means that the other elements required for abuse of authority?'an unnecessary act' and 'the occurrence of obstruction to the exercise of rights'?were also not recognized.
According to this logic, the charges related to trial interference against former Chief Justice Yang and former Deputy Chief Im could also potentially result in acquittals. This is because the authority to intervene in trials is not recognized as official authority, and it is difficult to prove a causal relationship with the trial outcomes influenced by the Judicial Administration Office. A lawyer in Seocho-dong commented, "It seems that the criticism that the prosecution's charges were unreasonable from the start is becoming a reality."
However, in the case of the Chief Justice and senior judges of the Judicial Administration Office, the scope of authority is much broader than that of high court judges, leaving room for a different outcome. The condition that former Chief Justice Yang and former Deputy Chief Im abused their authority is relatively more likely to be met. However, to support the remaining conditions?an unnecessary act and the occurrence of obstruction to the exercise of rights?there must be testimony that frontline judges actually changed trial outcomes according to the Supreme Court's instructions. Considering the investigations and witness examinations conducted so far, the likelihood of such testimony emerging appears slim. Ultimately, to hold them criminally responsible for trial interference, legislation such as the 'crime of judicial obstruction' would be necessary, but legal circles interpret that such legislation is unlikely to be realized in the near future.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
