[Law & Story] Judicial Reform Degenerates into an Attack on the Judiciary

Ruling Party Steps Up Pressure with Plans to Increase Supreme Court Justices
Judicial Reform Justifications Used to Tame the Courts
Claiming Superiority of Elected Power Is Pure Arrogance

Seokjin Choi, Law & Business Specialist

The Democratic Party of Korea is intensifying its offensive against the judiciary under the banner of judicial reform. The party is pushing measures such as nearly doubling the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26, allowing constitutional complaints against Supreme Court rulings, introducing a new crime for judicial distortion by judges, abolishing the National Court Administration, and, most recently, reviving the so-called "Presidential Trial Suspension Act."

The party claims that increasing the number of justices will resolve trial delays and that introducing retrial petitions will protect citizens' fundamental rights. However, these justifications are hard to accept at face value. Most of the judicial reform measures currently being pushed by the Democratic Party are focused on weakening the judiciary and contain elements that could undermine its independence. Rather than genuine reform, these actions feel more like an attack on the judiciary.

The reason these efforts lack credibility is that the motivation behind pushing such drastic changes to the fundamental structure of the judicial system is questionable. As everyone knows, the Democratic Party began its concentrated assault on the judiciary after the Supreme Court remanded President Lee Jaemyung’s violation of the Public Official Election Act for a guilty verdict. The renewed push for the Presidential Trial Suspension Act also began when Kim Daewoong, Chief Judge of the Seoul High Court, responded that the retrial of President Lee’s case was "theoretically possible."

This situation is reminiscent of six years ago, when, ahead of a confirmation hearing, suspicions of college admissions fraud involving the children of then-Justice Minister nominee Cho Kuk led to a prosecutorial search and seizure. The prosecution then became the target of reform, saw its investigative powers reduced, lost its authority to direct investigations, and ultimately faced the prospect of abolition. Contrary to the Democratic Party’s claims of "politically motivated investigations," former Minister Cho and his wife, former Professor Jung Kyungshim, were sentenced to prison and are serving their terms.

Even now, the Democratic Party is unable to logically refute the Supreme Court’s finding that President Lee’s statements regarding overseas golf rounds with the late Kim Moonki, former Director of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s pressure during the Baekhyeon-dong development project were false. Instead, the party only questions why the verdict was delivered so quickly before the presidential election, whether there was sufficient review, and focuses solely on the trial process and timing of the ruling.

It is understandable that the Supreme Court faces criticism for allegedly trying to influence the election by issuing a remand for a guilty verdict against a leading presidential candidate just one month before the election. On the other hand, it also seems that the Supreme Court’s duty is to ensure voters have accurate information about candidates who are, in fact, likely guilty of election-related crimes. If the Supreme Court had truly intended to block President Lee’s candidacy, wouldn’t it have stripped him of his eligibility to run through a direct ruling?

It is worth remembering that when the date for the verdict was set, neither President Lee nor the Democratic Party strongly objected. Assemblyman Park Ji-won cited a "well-informed source," saying, "An acquittal will be confirmed." President Lee also recalled in a broadcast interview, "I heard, 'Let’s dismiss it quickly and cleanly,'" and added, "I was thankful when I heard the verdict would come suddenly."

Ultimately, had the Supreme Court’s decision been acquittal rather than guilty, the judiciary would not be facing such difficulties, and the Democratic Party might even be praising it as an institution that helped bring about regime change. Attacking the judiciary and attempting to fill the Supreme Court with favorable personnel by drastically increasing the number of justices simply because the verdict was unfavorable must stop. Other measures, such as introducing retrial petitions or abolishing the National Court Administration, should not be forced through without thorough review and public consensus.

The judiciary, along with the legislature, is a pillar of the separation of powers and must be guaranteed independence above all. The arrogance of assuming that elected power is inherently superior must be set aside.