[The Police File]A Country Where Even 'Rioters' Engage in Court Shopping

The violent incidents that broke out in and around the Seoul Western District Court following the arrest of President Yoon Suk-yeol have deeply shocked the public. This event is likely to go down in history as a serious challenge to the rule of law and a major incident that shakes the foundation of the judicial order. The courts serve as a crucible for resolving social conflicts in our society. However, some groups, having turned into 'mobs,' attacked the court under the pretext of identifying the judge who issued the arrest warrant for the president, thereby trampling on public authority.

In this context, it has come to light that over 20 individuals who were detained for the disturbance at the Western District Court have filed requests to change the jurisdiction of their trial. They argue that it is problematic for the Seoul Western District Court, which they claim is a 'victim' in this case, to judge the legality of their actions as the 'perpetrators,' and are therefore demanding that the jurisdiction be transferred to the Seoul Central District Court as a 'third party.'

Everyone must take responsibility for their own actions. Illegal acts must be punished. In particular, violence against the courts, which form the very foundation of our society, cannot go unpunished. If such acts are tolerated, neither the country nor society can survive. Trials are procedures that hold individuals accountable for unlawful actions, and as a result, those who break the law may have their freedom restricted. For this reason, court procedures must follow the law and be fair. The right to a fair and prompt trial in accordance with due process is a fundamental right of the people.

Even those who attacked the court are, of course, entitled to such a trial and have the right to make such demands. If they disagree with the verdict, they can raise objections through legitimate procedures guaranteed by law. The right to request a change of court jurisdiction could also be considered to fall within this category. But is that really the case? Am I the only one who suspects that the demand to change the court's jurisdiction by those who attacked the court is a calculated 'trick' to avoid an unfavorable trial? It is disheartening to see that those who shouted and wielded blunt objects in front of the court, when faced with trial, immediately resorted to 'court shopping,' a tactic usually employed by 'legal technicians.'

The jurisdiction of a court is determined by law; it cannot be changed at the defendant's whim. Court shopping must be rejected. If such demands are accepted, it would set a trend and turn the system into a paradise for 'legal technicians' and 'legal tricksters.' I hope the court will issue a meaningful ruling on this matter with its upcoming decision. There are far too many tricks in our society.

Furthermore, I believe the court must hold those who caused the disturbance strictly accountable under the law. This is necessary to prevent such incidents from recurring and to deter even the thought of such actions. At the same time, the court should reflect on whether it bears any responsibility for having been attacked. In recent years, the judiciary has been plagued by a series of embarrassing incidents. Judges have been divided by ideology and background, and not a few have jumped straight into politics before the ink on their resignation letters had even dried. As judges pursue 'work-life balance,' the number of pending trials continues to grow endlessly, burdening citizens seeking justice. Law and justice are never negotiable or subject to compromise. I hope that everyone who works with the law will take this universal principle to heart.