[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] Kim Ki-young, a Constitutional Court judge who was once subject to disciplinary review for overturning Supreme Court precedents during former Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae's tenure and recognizing the state's liability for compensation to victims of the Emergency Measures, strongly criticized this issue in court.
On the 30th, Judge Kim appeared as a witness at the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 36 (Presiding Judge Yoon Jong-seop) during the trial of former Deputy Chief of the Court Administration Office, Lim Jong-heon, and made remarks to this effect.
Prior to the trial, during a prosecution investigation, Judge Kim was presented with a document reviewing disciplinary action against him and said, "Such a thing can never happen in a country with a judicial system of a civilized society."
When Lim's defense attorney referred to this statement in court and asked about its specific meaning, Judge Kim said, "In my interpretation, whether a first-instance judge, an appellate judge, or a Supreme Court justice, one should judge according to their conscience."
He continued, "If the first-instance ruling is wrong, it should be corrected in the appellate court; if the appellate ruling is wrong, it should be corrected by the Supreme Court according to law and conscience," adding, "I wonder if reviewing disciplinary action administratively is something that can happen in our democratic country, a nation where the rule of law is quite well established."
When Lim's defense attorney asked, "Did the witness (Judge Kim) or Chief Judge Ma Eun-hyuk, who made a ruling with the same intent, suffer any disciplinary action or disadvantages because of such rulings?" Judge Kim replied, "There was no (disadvantage)," but emphasized, "I think the very act of reviewing disciplinary action was inappropriate, and if disciplinary action had been taken because of such rulings, it would mean returning to a primitive society rather than a democratic one."
Judge Kim, who served as a chief judge at the Seoul Central District Court, ruled in 2015 in a damages lawsuit filed by victims of the Emergency Measures against the state, stating that "the Emergency Measures violated the president's constitutional duty to uphold the constitution," thereby siding with the victims.
Later, it was revealed that the Court Administration Office had reviewed disciplinary measures such as exercising supervisory authority over Chief Judge Kim regarding this ruling, which sparked controversy.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
