Na Kyungwon Criticizes Court's Postponement of President Lee's Trial: "The Court Has Finally Bowed Down"

Seoul High Court Postpones President Lee's Election Law Trial
Cites Article 84 of the Constitution... Likely to Resume After Term Ends
Na Kyungwon: "An Indelible Stain... How Lamentable"

As the court abruptly postponed the retrial date for President Lee Jae Myung's violation of the Public Official Election Act, citing Article 84 of the Constitution, which stipulates the president's immunity from prosecution, Rep. Na Kyungwon of the People Power Party, a former judge, criticized the decision, saying, "The court has finally bowed down to President Lee."

Rep. Na Kyungwon participating in the first group debate of the People Power Party's 21st presidential candidate primary in April. Photo by National Assembly Press Photographers

On June 9, Rep. Na stated on her social media (SNS), "No matter how many times I read Article 84 of the Constitution, it only says that new criminal prosecutions, in other words, indictments, cannot be initiated." She continued, "But to use this as a basis to postpone the trial date? How lamentable." She further argued, "Today, the judiciary has declared a regression of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea," and added, "It has left an indelible stain in constitutional history as the 'political subjugation of the judiciary.' Now, the Democratic Party's 'trial suspension law' is no longer necessary." She concluded, "Finally, we have entered an era where those with power are not guilty, and those without power are guilty."

The Seoul High Court Criminal Division 7 (Presiding Judge Lee Jaekwon) changed the first retrial date for President Lee's violation of the Public Official Election Act from the originally scheduled 18th to "to be determined." This procedure, known as "to be determined," is used when there is a reason a trial cannot proceed, postponing the scheduled trial date to be set again later. In effect, it is expected that the trial will be halted during his term in office.

President Lee Jae Myung, the 21st president, is moving after greeting Chief Justice Cho Hee Dae and others following his inauguration oath ceremony at the Rotunda Hall of the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on the morning of the 4th. Photo by National Assembly Press Photographers Group

The court explained this decision as "a measure in accordance with Article 84 of the Constitution." This article stipulates that "the president shall not be subject to criminal prosecution during his or her tenure, except for cases of insurrection or treason." This is known as presidential immunity. The court interpreted this to mean that the immunity applies not only to new indictments during the term, but also to trials for cases that were already indicted before inauguration.

Upon hearing this news, Han Donghoon, former leader of the People Power Party and former Minister of Justice, wrote on social media, "Today's decision, which has undermined judicial independence, will remain a major stain in the history of the Korean judiciary," and pointed out, "Article 84 of the Constitution is not a provision ordering the suspension of ongoing criminal trials that began before the presidential term, regardless of the president's official duties."

Han further stated, "This is not only unconstitutional but fundamentally undermines judicial independence, and such a wrong decision must be corrected by all possible means." He added, "Other panels handling President Lee's cases must never follow this example. If the principle that no one is above the Constitution is not upheld, we will pass down a flawed nation to future generations."

However, as other trials involving President Lee remain pending, the Democratic Party is expected to push for an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act to suspend trials for sitting presidents. Jeong Cheongrae, chair of the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee and a Democratic Party lawmaker, said in a YouTube interview on "Maebul Show" that "during a meeting with floor leader Park Chan-dae this morning, we discussed passing the 'trial suspension law' as originally planned on the 12th, regardless of the trial postponement." He added, "The court has been hesitating until now, but now that the administration has changed, it's acting as if it's doing us a favor. This is unacceptable."