Democratic Party's Legal Challenges Against Judiciary Amid Election

Despite the postponement of Lee Jae-myung's trial regarding the Public Official Election Act until after the presidential election, the Democratic Party continues its aggressive stance against the judiciary. On May 8, the party announced plans to propose a special investigation law to uncover allegations of Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's involvement in the election. Additionally, a hearing is scheduled for May 14, where Chief Justice Cho and other justices will be summoned to the National Assembly. The party has openly called for Cho's resignation, indicating a desire to hold accountable the justices who ruled against Lee on May 1.

Legal experts have expressed concern over this unprecedented pressure on the judiciary. Kim Dae-gwang, Secretary-General of the Legal Ethics Council, former judge Kim Ik-hyun, and Professor Han Sang-hoon, former president of the Korean Criminal Law Association, shared their differing views on the situation.

Kim Dae-gwang stated that the Democratic Party's attacks on the judiciary could instill a primal fear among legal professionals. He criticized the party for questioning why a guilty verdict was issued against a leading presidential candidate just before the election, arguing that the real issue is why a case involving allegations of false statements from three years ago remains unresolved. He suggested that the justices may have postponed the trial to avoid political misunderstandings, fearing that a sitting president could influence the proceedings.

The Democratic Party's threats of impeachment against the Chief Justice and other judges, as well as calls for hearings, are alarming. If Chief Justice Cho were to face such scrutiny, it could create a chilling effect on judges and lawyers, leading them to feel that a powerful opposition party is undermining the rules of justice. This could severely compromise the independence of the judiciary.

The party is also pushing for amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act to halt trials for presidential candidates and to remove certain provisions from the election law related to false statements. Kim questioned whether the party would still advocate for reform if Lee were acquitted by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for caution when altering laws that protect citizens' rights.

Kim Ik-hyun raised concerns about the potential chaos that could ensue if only the justices who ruled against Lee were impeached, which could paralyze the Supreme Court. He noted that the justices handle numerous cases daily and that the facts of Lee's case are already established, leaving only legal interpretations to be made.

Professor Han Sang-hoon argued that the pressure from the National Assembly is a consequence of the Supreme Court's hasty ruling in Lee's case. He criticized the court for making a decision that directly assessed the facts rather than focusing on legal principles, which is typically the role of appellate courts. He also pointed out that the expedited ruling was politically charged, potentially undermining the electoral process.

In conclusion, the decision to delay the trial until after the election was appropriate, as it aligns with constitutional provisions ensuring equal opportunities for election campaigning. Forcing a candidate to appear in court during the campaign could be seen as unconstitutional, and the timing of such legal proceedings should be carefully considered to avoid infringing on electoral rights.