The Democratic Party of Korea's amendment to the Criminal Act, dubbed the law distortion crime bill, which it introduced to punish judges, prosecutors and others for "law distortion," was placed on the floor of the National Assembly on the 25th. Alongside it, the party moved to sequentially push through, on its own initiative, the constitutional complaint bill and the bill to increase the number of Supreme Court justices.
As criticism emerged from some in the progressive camp that these bills had problems, the Democratic Party of Korea made sweeping changes right before introducing the law distortion crime bill in particular, which had drawn considerable constitutional controversy.
National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik introduced the revised law distortion crime bill at about 4:40 p.m. that day.
The core of the bill is to punish judges, prosecutors and others with up to 10 years in prison and up to 10 years of disqualification if they distort the law in relation to cases under trial or currently investigating with the purpose of unlawfully or unjustly granting benefits to others or harming rights and interests.
Initially, the original bill, which had passed the Legislation and Judiciary Committee under the leadership of the Democratic Party of Korea, had been referred to the plenary session, but the revised version was placed on the agenda after the party submitted it.
First, the Democratic Party of Korea's revision limited the scope of judges subject to the law distortion crime to "judges involved in criminal trials."
This significantly narrowed the scope of application by excluding judges involved in civil, administrative and family cases from the original bill, which had covered all judges.
The provision defining law distortion acts was also extensively revised.
Originally, the bill defined law distortion acts in three categories: ▲ cases where a statute was intentionally misinterpreted to advantage or disadvantage a party ▲ cases where evidence related to a case was destroyed, concealed, forged or altered, or used despite knowing it was forged or altered ▲ cases where evidence was collected unlawfully by means such as assault, threats or deceit, or where facts of a crime were recognized without evidence, or where facts were recognized in a manner that clearly ran counter to logic or rules of experience.
However, the revision changed the first provision to: "cases where, despite knowing that the requirements for applying a statute were not met, it was applied, or despite knowing that a statute should be applied, it was not applied, thereby intentionally influencing the outcome of a trial or investigation. However, discretionary judgments made within the reasonable scope of statutory interpretation are excluded." The provision appears aimed at blocking arbitrary application of the law by making it far more specific and even setting out exceptions.
In the third provision, the phrase "recognizing the facts of a crime without evidence" was changed to "recognizing the facts of a crime despite knowing that no lawful evidence exists." The phrase "recognizing facts in a way that clearly runs counter to logic or rules of experience" was deleted entirely. The second provision was maintained as in the original bill.
The Democratic Party of Korea's swift revision appears to follow internal and external concerns that the abstract wording of the provisions could trigger constitutional disputes. There was also talk that the party took into account worries that vague provisions could lead to a spate of complaints and accusations, causing judicial confusion.