[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The impeachment petition against former Busan High Court Chief Judge Lim Seong-geun, who is accused of involvement in three trials including the defamation case of former Sankei Shimbun Seoul Bureau Chief Kato Tatsuya, has been dismissed.
On the 28th at 2 p.m., the Constitutional Court held a ruling session for the impeachment petition case against former Chief Judge Lim at the Grand Bench in Jaedong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, and decided to dismiss the case with a 5 (dismissal) to 3 (acceptance) vote among the justices. One other justice expressed the opinion that the trial procedure should be terminated.
The Constitutional Court judged that since former Chief Judge Lim had already retired from his judicial position due to the expiration of his term during the impeachment petition trial, it was impossible to issue a dismissal order, and thus the impeachment petition did not meet the legal requirements.
The impeachment trial system is a procedure to remove from public office presidents, prime ministers, state council members, judges, etc., whose constitutional status is guaranteed by the Constitution, if they violate the Constitution or laws during the execution of their duties.
The Constitutional Court accepted the respondent’s (Lim Seong-geun) argument that “it is impossible to issue a dismissal order against former Chief Judge Lim who has already retired due to term expiration, so there is no benefit in the trial.”
The majority opinion justices pointed out, “According to the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act, the benefit of an impeachment trial means the interest in continuing the trial to issue a dismissal order against the respondent from the relevant public office,” and “if dismissal is impossible and the purpose cannot be achieved, the benefit of the impeachment trial disappears.”
They further explained, “It is clear that the respondent (former Chief Judge Lim) lost his judicial position due to term expiration retirement, and even if the substantive trial is completed in this case, it has become impossible to issue a dismissal order that deprives him of public office,” and “since the benefit of the impeachment trial is not recognized, it is improper and must be dismissed.”
This decision came about eight months after the National Assembly decided on February 4 this year to impeach former Chief Judge Lim, the first judge in constitutional history to be impeached.
According to the summary of the National Assembly’s impeachment charges, former Chief Judge Lim, who served as the Senior Criminal Judge at the Seoul Central District Court during former Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae’s tenure from 2015 to 2016, was accused of improperly intervening in three trials: ▲ the defamation case of former Sankei Shimbun Seoul Bureau Chief Kato Tatsuya related to reports on former President Park Geun-hye’s whereabouts on the day of the Sewol ferry disaster, ▲ the arrest and injury charges against lawyers from the Lawyers for a Democratic Society (Minbyun) during the Ssangyong Motor protests, and ▲ the gambling charges against professional baseball players Oh Seung-hwan and Lim Chang-yong.
In the Kato Tatsuya case, he requested the presiding judge of the trial panel to revise the interim judgment or the oral statement of the verdict. In the baseball players’ case, he summoned the judge who referred a case with a summary order to a formal trial procedure and advised hearing more opinions from surrounding judges, which eventually led to a reversal of the decision. In the Minbyun lawyers’ arrest and injury case, he caused the modification of the already issued verdict, thereby infringing on the constitutional independence of the judiciary and the independence of trials, and violating the Court Organization Act and the Criminal Procedure Act.
During the preparatory hearing held on March 24 and three oral arguments held between June and September, the petitioner and the respondent engaged in intense disputes.
Procedurally, the impeachment petition case raised issues such as ▲ whether there were problems in the National Assembly’s impeachment procedure ▲ whether criminal trials or disciplinary actions for the same reasons and impeachment petitions violate the constitutional principle of ne bis in idem ▲ whether it is possible to issue a dismissal order against a retired public official.
Substantively, the disputes centered on ▲ whether former Chief Judge Lim’s actions included in the impeachment charges could be considered illegal or unconstitutional ▲ and even if illegal, whether they constituted a “serious legal violation” warranting impeachment of a judge.
At the previous oral arguments, the petitioner (impeachment committee) argued that former Chief Judge Lim, as the Senior Criminal Judge, exerted influence over judges belonging to the same Seoul Central District Court, and thus his “instructions” or “coercion” constituted unconstitutional acts infringing on judicial independence. They also emphasized that it was possible to issue a dismissal order retroactively before the expiration of Lim’s term.
On the other hand, former Chief Judge Lim’s side presented testimonies from junior judges submitted during his criminal trial and statements made in court, arguing that it was merely “advice” or “recommendation” from a senior judge with whom he had a friendly relationship and could not be seen as infringing judicial independence. They also countered that dismissal of a retired public official is impossible.
The Constitutional Court requires the approval of six or more justices to accept an impeachment petition.
Meanwhile, in the criminal trial proceeding on the same charges, former Chief Judge Lim was acquitted of abuse of authority charges in both the first and second trials and is currently undergoing an appeal trial.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
