[Reporter’s Notebook] Why the Sincerity of Judicial Reform Is in Doubt

'Criminal Division 7, 2025No1238 Lee Jaemyung Public Official Election Act case resumes.'

What would happen if such a message appeared in the court press group chat? I imagined the scenario. A trial date would be set, and a trial in absentia would be held. The High Court proceedings would likely conclude within one or two sessions. Sentencing would be delivered within two months, and the case would then return to the Supreme Court. If Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae and the 13 Supreme Court justices remain in place, there is a high possibility that a final ruling of "no misinterpretation of law" will be delivered. On November 15 last year, the court of first instance sentenced Lee to one year in prison, suspended for two years.

If a sentence severe enough to strip the presidency (a fine of 1 million won or more) is finalized, the entire administration, including diplomacy and national security, would be thrown into chaos. There would be an uproar, with accusations of a "judicial coup." A heated debate would erupt over whether Article 84 of the Constitution's immunity from prosecution applies only to indictment or also to trial.

Although the possibility is slim, the ruling party appears to be doing everything possible to prevent this nightmare in advance. Judicial reform issues such as increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 26, banning appeals of acquittals in the first instance, and introducing a four-tier court system are examples. The push to increase the number of Supreme Court justices, ostensibly to resolve trial delays, directly conflicts with the introduction of a four-tier court system, which would lengthen judicial procedures. It is understandable that suspicions are being raised that these judicial reforms are aimed at "halting the president's trial."

Does the fact that elected power takes precedence over judicial power mean it is acceptable to manipulate the judiciary without deliberation? Legislative power is exercised by political actors operating on an independent accounting basis. They focus on "vote-winning activities" and "securing future power," such as party leadership contests and running in local elections. Elected power is built on this structure.

Does being backed by votes guarantee dignity and good faith? It does not. Elected power is merely a "messenger delivering a letter." In reality, messengers sometimes alter the contents of the letter at the request of the party, in the heat of re-election competition, or to protect their political survival. Sometimes, without truly representing public sentiment, they distort the will of a fervent support base as if it were the will of the entire nation.

A cabinet minister and senior ruling party lawmaker said, "It is not the tail (the hardline support base) wagging the body (the party), but the feathers on the tail (a tiny minority of hardline supporters) that are shaking the body (the party)." This year's National Assembly audit, which became the "most sensational shorts audit ever," vividly demonstrated this reality.

Judicial reform driven unilaterally by elected power, excluding the judiciary's input, is easily suspected of lacking genuine intent. Of course, the judiciary's flaws, as shown in decisions such as "revoking the arrest of former President Yoon Suk-yeol" and the "swift remand of the Lee presidential election law case," must be addressed. However, the solution should not be to politicize the judiciary and dominate it from above. The judiciary is a guardrail. Why now, and for what purpose is judicial reform being pursued? If the only goal is to suppress judicial power without asking that question, the legislative and judicial branches will inevitably clash head-on. The moment the balance of the three branches collapses, democracy will cry out in pain.