Democratic Party's Ongoing Attacks on Judiciary Amid Lee Jae-myung's Legal Troubles
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 election interference against Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. Additionally, a hearing is scheduled for May 14, where both Cho and other Supreme Court 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 their 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 law that would halt trials if a defendant is elected president, as well as changes to election laws that would remove certain charges against Lee. 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 lead to a paralysis of the Supreme Court. He noted that the justices are already under pressure, and the unique circumstances surrounding Lee's case could complicate judicial processes further.
Professor Han Sang-hoon argued that the National Assembly's pressure on the judiciary stems from the Supreme Court's hasty ruling in Lee's case. He criticized the court for making a decision that directly assessed the facts of the case rather than focusing on legal interpretations, which is typically the role of the appellate court. He also pointed out that the expedited ruling raises suspicions of political motives, as it could disenfranchise a leading opposition candidate.
In conclusion, the postponement of Lee's trial until after the election was deemed 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 decision to delay the trial reflects a commitment to uphold democratic principles.
