The Im Seong-geun Recording Scandal Spreads... Kim Myeong-su Cornered in a Dead End

Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo is arriving at the Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul on the 5th. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Seokjin Choi] “How is this any different from former Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae, who is on trial for abuse of judicial administrative power?” (Judge A, Seoul Central District Court)

The scandal over the release of the recorded file of Busan High Court Chief Judge Im Seong-geun has intensified, putting Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo in a desperate situation.

As concerns about the judiciary’s loss of trust grow both inside and outside the courts, and the opposition party has vowed to conduct a thorough investigation and push for impeachment, an unprecedented situation has arisen where the sitting Chief Justice is subject to a prosecution investigation due to a criminal complaint filed by civic groups.

On the 5th, Chief Justice Kim did not respond at all to the barrage of questions from reporters on his way to work. This was a stark contrast to his apology the previous evening, when he said, “It happened nearly nine months ago, so I don’t remember it clearly.”

This is interpreted as both the burden of escalating criticism and calls for accountability directed at him moment by moment, and his contemplation of ways to resolve the situation.

Chief Justice Kim is now past the midpoint of his six-year term. It seems he himself did not expect the situation to escalate to this extent.

However, the aftershocks are growing uncontrollably as the audio file?not even a transcript?of his remarks last May, when he discouraged Chief Judge Im from resigning by saying “political situations such as the National Assembly’s impeachment discussions must be considered,” was released.

It is shocking that the Chief Justice, who should be foremost in defending “judicial independence,” said “political situations must be considered,” but the fact that he lied clearly during the official explanation of the allegations cannot be dismissed as “unclear memory from nine months ago” because the situation has already become too serious.

The shock among court members who trusted and followed the Chief Justice can only be greater. It is surprising enough that, for the first time in constitutional history, an impeachment motion against a sitting judge was passed, but the fact that political considerations by the head of the judiciary were involved behind the scenes is being received as even more shocking. Many judges lament that the entire judiciary should be ashamed of the situation where a judge recorded a meeting with the Chief Justice and then released the recording to the media.

Even a sitting judge (Jeong Wook-do, Chief Judge of Daegu District Court) pointed out in a post on the court’s internal network the day before, “Instead of responding fairly and squarely about the reasons for rejecting the resignation, creating the appearance of watching political circles, and especially stirring controversy with false explanations after the issue arose, I think this was inappropriate conduct.”

With this statement made public, suspicions have also been raised that the several personnel changes and institutional reforms carried out by Chief Justice Kim since his inauguration inevitably reflected his particular political intentions and were biased.

The People Power Party launched a “Truth Investigation Team on the Impeachment Deal” the day before and began relay one-person protests in front of the Supreme Court building starting today. Although the ruling party holds an absolute majority in the National Assembly and there are concerns that an impeachment motion against Chief Justice Kim could be rejected and thus grant him a de facto pardon, it is highly likely that they will push for impeachment as a countermeasure against the ruling party’s impeachment efforts targeting Chief Judge Im.

The day before, the civic group “Action Alliance for Upholding the Rule of Law” (Beopse-ryeon) filed a complaint with the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office against Chief Justice Kim for abuse of authority and spreading false information, after he refused to accept Chief Judge Im’s resignation and gave false explanations.

Many legal professionals hold the opinion that if Chief Justice Kim instructed an unaware staff member to include clearly false information in a response letter sent to a member of the National Assembly’s office, the crime of instigating the creation of false official documents could be sufficiently established.