'Disruption in the Dissolution Trial of Tongjindang' Lawyer Kwon Young-guk Sentenced to 5 Million Won Fine

[Asia Economy Reporter Lim Chun-han] Lawyer Kwon Young-guk, who caused a disturbance in the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court in protest against the 2014 dissolution decision of the Unified Progressive Party, was found guilty in the retrial and sentenced to a fine.

On the 23rd, the 4-2 Criminal Appeal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judges Jeon Yeon-sook, Cha Eun-kyung, Yang Ji-jung) recognized Kwon's guilt for courtroom disturbance in the retrial and sentenced him to a fine of 5 million won.

Kwon was indicted for causing a disturbance by shouting, "From today, the Constitution has destroyed political freedom and democracy," during the reading of the dissolution order of the Unified Progressive Party in the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court on December 19, 2014. The previous appellate court acquitted Kwon on the grounds that the Constitutional Court is not included in the 'court' where insults or disturbances are prohibited under criminal law, but the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's ruling last year, stating that it misunderstood the law, and remanded the case.

The retrial court pointed out, "The defendant's remarks in the tribunal essentially deny the function and role of the Constitutional Court, causing the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, who read the order, to feel insulted and embarrassed, sufficiently disrupting the smooth conduct of the trial." It added, "Courtroom disturbance is a crime that undermines the function of a fair trial and requires strict punishment," and "The defendant does not appear to sincerely reflect on his wrongdoing even in this trial."

The Lawyers for a Democratic Society (Minbyun) criticized the ruling in a press release on the same day, stating, "The ruling completely ignores the legal interest that the crime of courtroom disturbance is meant to protect, which is the function of the trial." They added, "Although the verdict was delivered without any obstruction at the time, a guilty verdict was issued after 7 years and 6 months," and "Punishing because the presiding judge felt insulted even though the court's duties were not disrupted is biased toward authoritarianism."