[Law & Story] The Democratic Party's Excessive Undermining of the Judiciary

Weak Evidence in Ji Guyon Entertainment Allegations
Excessive Pressure on the Judiciary by the Democratic Party
Concerns Over Legislative Overreach After a Change in Administration

Seokjin Choi Lawnbiz Specialist

The controversy surrounding the alleged "room salon drinking entertainment" involving Chief Judge Ji Guyon, who is presiding over the sedition trial of former President Yoon Suk-yeol, is escalating as it turns into a battle over the truth.

After Chief Judge Ji, the person at the center of the allegations, unusually made a statement in court denying the accusations by mentioning soju-beer cocktails and pork belly, the Democratic Party raised the pressure by releasing a photo showing Judge Ji's face and insisting that he should be stripped of his judicial robe.

If, as the Democratic Party claims, Chief Judge Ji was entertained at a room salon where the cost of alcohol exceeded 1 million won per person, this would constitute a violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. Furthermore, if the acquaintance who paid for the drinks was a party to a case or an attorney involved in a case that Chief Judge Ji had presided over or was currently presiding over, it could also constitute bribery.

However, based solely on the photos released by the Democratic Party as if they were decisive evidence, it is questionable whether Chief Judge Ji actually received "room salon drinking entertainment." The only photos presented show three men with their arms around each other's shoulders in a setting where not even a bottle of alcohol, let alone hostesses, is visible, and another photo shows several unrelated men and women drinking together in a large hall, with no apparent connection to Chief Judge Ji.

At present, it is difficult to determine whether the allegations raised by the Democratic Party are true. However, the Supreme Court's Office of Ethics and Audit is already investigating the matter, and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) has launched an investigation following complaints from civic groups with opposition party leanings. If the Democratic Party possesses more definitive evidence, there is no reason to withhold it and simply fuel the controversy.

The issue is that this allegation appears to be a form of retaliation against Chief Judge Ji for releasing former President Yoon. Regardless of whether Chief Judge Ji's decision to accept the defense's argument that the detention period should be calculated in hours rather than days was correct, it is inappropriate to conduct background checks on judges, expose their personal information, and demand the replacement of the bench simply because one disagrees with a judge's ruling or decision.

Previously, Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, was sentenced in the first trial to the loss of his parliamentary seat for violating the Public Official Election Act and nearly lost his eligibility to run in the next presidential election. However, the appellate court applied reasoning that diverged from existing Supreme Court precedents and acquitted him of all charges. Of the 12 Supreme Court justices who participated in the final appeal, 10 justices?excluding 2 who were appointed during the Moon Jae-in administration and were members of a particular research group?ruled that the appellate decision was "based on a misunderstanding of the law" and remanded the case with a guilty verdict. If lawmakers or supporters of the People Power Party had conducted background checks on the three appellate judges or exposed someone who allegedly bought them drinks, one wonders how the Democratic Party would have responded.

Previously, the Democratic Party pressured the judiciary by discussing criminal complaints and impeachment proceedings against the 10 Supreme Court justices?including Chief Justice Cho?who found Lee guilty of violating election law, and attempted to summon Chief Justice Cho as a witness in a related parliamentary hearing. Their pressure on the judiciary, backed by their overwhelming majority in the National Assembly, has gone too far. They have proposed amending the Court Organization Act to increase the number of Supreme Court justices to 30 and introducing a new "crime of judicial distortion" to punish judges by amending the Criminal Act. The Democratic Party has even proposed revising the explicit statutory ban on "appeals against court rulings"?which was intended to prevent the Constitutional Court from becoming a de facto fourth instance of appeal?so that the Constitutional Court could review court decisions again.

Given all this, there are already concerns about whether there will be any way to stop the Democratic Party's legislative overreach and undermining of the judiciary if Lee is elected president and even the executive's veto power over legislation becomes ineffective.