Kim Byung-ki, the Democratic Party of Korea floor leader, emphasized the need for establishing a special tribunal to handle the 12·3 martial law incident during a press briefing on the 2nd, stating, "I do not judge it as unconstitutional." This statement comes amid concerns raised by the Supreme Court's Court Administration Office regarding the constitutional legality of the ruling party's push for a special tribunal.
On that day, the floor leader expressed his thoughts at a meeting ahead of the regular National Assembly session, saying, "I personally believe that a special tribunal for insurrection is necessary," adding, "Seeing Judge Ji Gwi-yeon's behavior and a series of incidents where arrest warrants are rejected, it is clear that the anxiety of 'Could the insurrection trial go wrong?' is amplifying. It is an undeniable fact that the judiciary provided the trigger for this."
He further added, "It is important to first determine whether a special tribunal for insurrection is necessary before judging its constitutionality."
The Democratic Party is pushing for the establishment of a special tribunal for insurrection, focusing on members of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee. They plan to base discussions on the 'Special Act on Insurrection (Special Act on Follow-up Measures to the 12·3 Martial Law and Protection of Whistleblowers)' proposed by Representative Park Chan-dae in July. According to the bill, the Seoul Central District Court and the Seoul High Court will have special judges designated to handle martial law-related warrants and will establish special tribunals for first and second trials. The composition of the special tribunal and the appointment of judges designated for warrants will be recommended by a nine-member committee, excluding the People Power Party, made up of recommendations from the National Assembly, judiciary, and the Korean Bar Association.
In response, the Supreme Court's Court Administration Office submitted an opinion to the National Assembly on the 29th of last month, stating, "The installation of judges designated for warrants and special tribunals to judge specific cases is likely to be interpreted as an unconstitutional system not prescribed by the constitution."
The floor leader urged caution regarding the heated discussions around the details of the prosecution reform plans. He emphasized, "We should state our opinions assertively, but it should not become personal attacks. Personal attacks should be minimized, and we must find the optimal consensus through discussion." This appears to be in response to recent warning comments made by Min Hyung-bae, the Democratic Party's special committee chairman on prosecution reform, targeting Minister Jeong Seong-ho, questioning, "Are you upholding your duty as Minister? Aren't you going too far?"
Regarding contentious issues such as supplementary investigative rights, he stated, "We will continue discussions after deciding where to place the Serious Crime Investigation Agency (the special investigative agency) on the 25th." As differences in opinion continue to arise, the government expressed its intention to focus first on processing the government organization law amendment aimed at abolishing the prosecution office and establishing a special investigative agency, while planning to discuss the remaining issues later.
Concerning the amendment of the government organization law scheduled for the 25th, he said, "In addition to dismantling the prosecution office, other organizations will naturally be included in the reorganization," adding, "Although significant proposals are involved that may take time, we will ensure it is processed within the September regular National Assembly session without being too late." The government plans to finalize its position by the 5th after going through a general assembly on the 4th and then propose the amendment to the government organization law after consultations with the party.
Regarding economic bills to be handled within the regular National Assembly, he reaffirmed the intention to ease the crime of breach of trust. The floor leader stated, "A key example in economic bills is breach of trust. There is no doubt that it poses a problem. Punishing managerial decisions is inconsistent with global trends. However, there has been no consensus on how far the easing should go," adding, "Personally, I believe breach of trust should be abolished," and stated, "What is clear is that we will not push for it in stages 1 and 2. We will resolve it decisively."
Regarding the direction of constitutional amendment discussions, he suggested, "Instead of grand discourses, it might be better to discuss proposals that can reach a consensus and can be sufficiently submitted in the near future," stating, "It is nearly agreed upon to include the spirit of May 18 in the preamble. Let's make decisions on such matters first."