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 on forming a recommendation committee for the dedicated division and effectively entrusted the right to recommend to the judges' meeting. The revised bill is scheduled to be introduced at the National Assembly plenary session that day.
Chief spokesperson Park Su-hyeon met with reporters after the general meeting of lawmakers held at the National Assembly that day and said, "The procedure to approve as the party line the special law on establishing a court division dedicated to insurrection cases was completed at the general meeting, and it was adopted as the party line."
Chief spokesperson Park said, "The party line was decided as a procedure in which a recommendation committee for the dedicated insurrection court division will not be formed. Instead, if the judges' meetings at the Seoul Central District Court and the High Court set criteria on the number of divisions and judge qualifications, then each court's case allocation committee will allocate work according to those criteria, the judges' meeting will vote, and the court president will appoint in accordance with the resolution."
The original bill that the Democratic Party pushed through at The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee called for a nine-member recommendation committee—recommended by the president of the Constitutional Court, the Minister of Justice, and the judges' meeting—to recommend judges. As this method became mired in constitutional controversy, the Democratic Party had been reviewing a revised plan to compose the judge recommendation body with judges from the judges' meeting and the National Judges' Representative Meeting. However, as the "unconstitutionality" controversy still was not resolved, it is interpreted that a final plan was drawn up to allow the judges' meeting to effectively determine how the panels are formed.
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 restricted, but this was not reflected. However, a "special rule to prevent strategic lawsuits to silence" was introduced to allow courts to dismiss excessive damages claims at an early stage. A strategic lawsuit to silence refers to a lawsuit that strategically seeks damages with the aim of chilling public-interest speech.
In the final version of the Eradication of false or manipulated information Act, the requirements of "intentionality and purpose of unjust enrichment," which had been deleted during The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee review, were restored. Accordingly, it addressed the constitutional concerns that simple distribution of false information could be banned. The committee's revision distinguishing false information and manipulated information will be maintained.