[Exclusive] Are Drunk-Driving Judges Fit to Preside? Supreme Court Reviews Constitutionality of Pre-Disciplinary Exclusion from Duties

Drunk Driving and On?Duty Daytime Drinking Disturbances

Calls for Institutional Safeguards amid Repeated Misconduct

Trials Continuing Before Disciplinary Decisions Finalized Draw Criticism for "Undermining Trust"

Constitutional Articl

The Supreme Court is reviewing a plan to exclude judges facing misconduct allegations from trial work even before disciplinary procedures are completed. This comes from the view that institutional improvements are needed, as there have been repeated cases in which judges caused public controversy through drunk driving, causing disturbances at karaoke during working hours, or having travel expenses paid for them, yet received only light disciplinary measures or continued presiding over trials until their disciplinary status was finalized.

According to coverage compiled by The Asia Business Daily on February 24, the Supreme Court has decided to examine whether "pre-disciplinary exclusion from trials" conflicts with the principle of judicial tenure guaranteed under Article 106 of the Constitution. An official at the National Court Administration said, "We plan to collect basic data and review overseas cases in order to promote revisions to relevant rules and regulations or legislative improvements." Since some countries impose certain limits on the duties of judges while disciplinary procedures are underway, the intention is to compare those systems with the Korean constitutional framework.

Under the current Constitution, Article 106 stipulates that judges cannot be subjected to adverse measures except by impeachment, a sentence of imprisonment or heavier punishment, or disciplinary action. Until now, this provision has been interpreted strictly, and the prevailing view has been that there is no legal basis to directly restrict a judge's trial work while disciplinary procedures are in progress. This is based on the interpretation that excluding a judge from trials or changing the allocation of judicial duties could constitute an "adverse measure," thereby raising constitutional issues.

Controversial cases have followed one after another. On February 4, a senior judge (Judge A) at the Changwon District Court was summarily indicted on charges of having travel expenses paid by a duty-free shop team leader who accompanied him on an overseas trip last year. Even on the day after the summary indictment, Judge A continued to preside over trials and handed down not-guilty verdicts in the cases of Myung Taekyun and former People Power Party lawmaker Kim Youngsun.

Another senior judge (Judge B) at the Seoul Central District Court was caught drunk driving. At about 3:01 p.m. on December 13, 2025, he was stopped after driving approximately 4 kilometers near Sagajeong Station in Jungnang-gu, Seoul, and his blood alcohol concentration at the time was 0.071%, a level that warrants license suspension. While disciplinary procedures were underway, he continued to preside over civil trials for about two months without any separate exclusion from his duties, and on February 3, 2026, he received a three-month pay reduction.

The "karaoke during working hours" incident involving three senior judges at the Jeju District Court has also come under fire. On June 28, 2024, they drank alcohol during working hours and caused a disturbance at a karaoke room, prompting a police response. They then moved to another karaoke room, and it was reported that two of them left work without returning to the court. The Court Audit Committee decided to issue a "warning" to them.

Concerns have long been raised that the public will find it difficult to fully accept rulings handed down by judges suspected of misconduct, and that such situations may undermine public trust, which is the foundation of the judiciary. If measures to restrict trial work before disciplinary decisions are finalized are introduced, a significant shift is expected in how the constitutional principle of judicial tenure is interpreted. The key issue will be where to strike the balance between judicial independence and public trust in the judiciary.