[The Police File] Can a Judge Caught Drunk and Unlicensed Driving Be Qualified to Judge Others?

What would be an appropriate level of disciplinary action if a sitting judge was caught driving without a license after having their license revoked due to drunk driving? Judge A was caught driving about 500 meters in a state of severe intoxication with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.18% in Seocho-dong, Seoul, in the early hours of July 4, 2020, and had his license revoked. He received a 'one-month suspension' from the court for this incident. Shortly after his license was revoked, in April 2021, A was caught again driving about 2 km in the Gangnam area without a license. Despite committing both drunk driving and unlicensed driving, the court announced earlier this month that A received the same 'one-month suspension' as before.

What if he were an ordinary public official rather than a judge? Mr. B, a local government official, was caught driving about 200 meters while intoxicated on a road in Dong-gu, Ulsan, in August 2019, and had his license revoked. He was dismissed in October of the same year for violating the duty to maintain dignity. Another official, Mr. C, was caught drunk driving on a road in Chuncheon, Gangwon Province, in May 2018, had his license revoked, and was dismissed three months later. These two officials lost their 'iron rice bowl' status solely due to drunk driving. This contrasts sharply with the judge who committed drunk and unlicensed driving.

Drunk driving is a serious crime that can cause fatal misfortune not only to oneself but also to innocent others. According to provisional data from the National Police Agency, last year there were about 14,900 drunk driving traffic accidents nationwide, resulting in approximately 23,200 injuries and 160 deaths. A recent incident in Incheon, where a 30-year-old motorcycle delivery worker lost his life, was also a drunk driving traffic accident. Such incidents cause innocent casualties and can ruin the lives of their families. This is why there is a nationwide effort to eradicate drunk driving, including the significant strengthening of enforcement standards with the implementation of the second Yoon Chang-ho Act (amended Road Traffic Act) in June 2019. The introduction of a 'one-strike-out' system in the prosecution organization, which wields immense power, as well as among ordinary public officials, reflects the recognition of drunk driving as a serious crime.

However, judges are exempt from such measures. It is not only Judge A. Judge D, caught drunk driving in December 2019, received only a 'two-month pay cut,' and Judge E, who drove while severely intoxicated in March last year, was given a 'one-month suspension.' Such lenient punishments are due to the constitutional guarantee of judicial status. The Constitution explicitly states that judges cannot be dismissed except by imprisonment or impeachment. This provision was established in the 1980 constitutional amendment during the military regime to ensure judicial independence and the protection of judges' status. Since then, disciplinary actions against judges have been limited to reprimands, pay cuts, and suspensions. Suspension is the highest level of discipline and is limited to a maximum of one year.

The protection of judges' status is intended to safeguard the public's right to a fair trial, not to shield individual judges' misconduct. In any country, the higher the social status, the greater the moral obligations, the so-called 'noblesse oblige.' This is especially true for judges who determine the guilt and sentencing of those charged with drunk driving. The court’s failure to impose severe discipline on a judge who shamelessly committed both drunk and unlicensed driving is difficult to defend against criticism of 'protecting their own.' Judge A’s 'one-month suspension' will be lifted tomorrow (the 27th). Given his past behavior, it is highly likely he will appear in court as if nothing happened and continue issuing rulings. Which defendant would accept a ruling made by such a judge, and which citizen would trust a judiciary that defends such a judge? It is hoped that they will humbly reflect on whether they are qualified to judge others.