The Democratic Party of Korea held a general meeting of lawmakers on the 22nd and adopted as its party line a revised bill to establish a court division dedicated to insurrection cases. From the original bill, it deleted the provision establishing a recommendation committee for the insurrection panel and effectively entrusted the recommendation authority to the judges' meeting. The revised bill is scheduled to be introduced at the National Assembly plenary session the same day.
Chief spokesperson Park Su-hyeon met with reporters after the general meeting of lawmakers at the National Assembly that day and said, "The procedure to approve as party policy the special law on establishing a court division dedicated to insurrection has been completed at the general meeting, and it has been adopted as the party line."
Chief spokesperson Park said, "Without forming a recommendation committee for the insurrection panel, the party line was approved for a procedure in which the judges' meetings at the Seoul Central District Court and the High Court set standards on matters such as the number of insurrection panels and judge qualifications, after which each court's case allocation committee allocates work according to those standards, the judges' meeting votes on it, and the court president appoints in accordance with the resolution."
The original bill that the Democratic Party pushed through at The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee provided that a nine-member recommendation committee, recommended by the president of the Constitutional Court, the Minister of Justice, and the judges' meeting, would recommend judges. As that approach became embroiled in constitutional controversy, the Democratic Party had reviewed a revision to form the judge recommendation body with judges from the judges' meeting and the National Judges' Representative Meeting. However, as questions over "unconstitutionality" still were not resolved, it is interpreted that a final plan was drawn up to allow the judges' meeting to effectively determine how to constitute the panel.
The Democratic Party also adopted as its party line the Eradication of False or Manipulated Information Act (amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection).
The core of the amendment is that if someone knowingly and intentionally distributes illegal information or false or manipulated information and causes damage, they must compensate up to five times the amount of the damage. Media organizations offered the view that punitive damage claims by those in power—such as politicians, public officials, and executives of large corporations—should be limited, but this was not reflected. However, a "special provision to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation" will be introduced to allow courts to dismiss excessive damage claims at an early stage. A strategic lawsuit against public participation refers to a suit strategically filed to seek damages for the purpose of chilling public-interest speech.
The final version of the Eradication of False or Manipulated Information Act was revised to restore the "intentionality and purpose of unjust enrichment" requirement that had been deleted during review at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. Accordingly, it resolved the part that had raised constitutional concerns by preventing a ban from extending to the mere distribution of false information. The committee's revision distinguishing false information from manipulated information will be maintained.