On the 24th, the Constitutional Court ruled a 'dismissal of impeachment' for Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. Accordingly, Prime Minister Han immediately returned to his duties as acting president. It had been 87 days since he was suspended from his duties due to the impeachment proceedings from the National Assembly. In the decision, the eight Constitutional Court justices were divided with '5 dismissals', '2 dismissals for lack of standing', and '1 acceptance'.
The Constitutional Court issued a dismissal of impeachment for Prime Minister Han Duck-soo at 10 a.m. that day. Earlier, opposition parties, including the Democratic Party, passed the impeachment motion against Prime Minister Han on Dec. 27 for several reasons: ▲ requirement for presidential veto on the special prosecution law for special prosecutors Chae Hae-byeong and Kim Keon-hee ▲ support and tacit acknowledgment of the Dec. 3 martial law situation ▲ announcement of a joint government-party national administration plan immediately after the martial law ▲ delay in recommending candidates for a permanent special prosecutor ▲ refusal to appoint Constitutional Court justices. Following this, the court prepared for arguments twice before officially hearing the case on Feb. 19 and concluding the proceedings.
In the announcement of the decision that day, 5 of the 8 Constitutional Court justices expressed a dismissal opinion, 2 expressed a dismissal for lack of standing, and 1 expressed an acceptance opinion. Justices Moon Hyung-bae, Lee Mi-sun, Kim Hyung-doo, Jeong Jeong-mi, and Kim Bok-hyeong submitted dismissal opinions. These five justices judged that Prime Minister Han did not violate the Constitution or laws based on the four charges related to his impeachment: 'related to martial law and insurrection charges,' 'related to joint national governance activities,' 'regarding the exercise of the presidential veto for the special prosecutor appointment bill,' and 'regarding the delay in recommending candidates for the special prosecutor.'
However, opinions differed among the five justices regarding the 'refusal to appoint three Constitutional Court justices.' Justices Moon Hyung-bae, Lee Mi-sun, Kim Hyung-doo, and Jeong Jeong-mi determined that 'it cannot be concluded that there was a violation of the Constitution and laws, or a breach of public trust, hence grounds for dismissal do not exist.' On the other hand, Justice Kim Bok-hyeong stated, 'It is difficult to view it as a violation of the Constitution and laws.'
Justice Kim Hyung-doo, in the announcement of the decision, addressed the National Assembly's claim of 'support and tacit acknowledgment of the Dec. 3 martial law situation,' saying, "There is no evidence or objective data to acknowledge that Prime Minister Han actively acted, such as suggesting a Cabinet meeting to provide procedural legitimacy for the declaration of martial law." He added, "After the National Assembly passed the resolution demanding the lifting of martial law, there is also no evidence or objective data to acknowledge facts related to impeachment, such as not proposing a Cabinet meeting to the president, leading to the conclusion that Prime Minister Han cannot be seen as having violated the Constitution."
Justice Kim further noted regarding the major issue of 'non-appointment of Constitutional Court justices' that 'there is no evidence or objective data to acknowledge that the refusal to appoint Prime Minister Han's Constitutional Court justices was intended to incapacitate the Constitutional Court, which is conducting the impeachment trial against the sitting president.'
Additionally, Justice Kim mentioned that during the political conflict surrounding the appointment of Constitutional Court justices, there was ongoing controversy regarding Prime Minister Han's roles and scope as acting president following the impeachment motion against him. He remarked that after the impeachment motion was passed, the newly appointed acting Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok appointed Jo Han-chang and Jeong Gye-seon as Constitutional Court justices, which indicates that the constitutional order slightly recovered from the disruption caused by Prime Minister Han's refusal to appoint justices.
He also pointed out that 'it cannot be definitively concluded that Prime Minister Han's violation of the Constitution and laws constituted a betrayal of the confidence granted by the people, indirectly granted through the appointing authority of the president.' Therefore, he stated, 'there are no grounds to justify the decision to dismiss Prime Minister Han.'
Meanwhile, Justices Jeong Hyung-sik and Jo Han-chang submitted dismissal opinions. They argued that for the National Assembly to impeach the acting president, a two-thirds majority vote of the total number of members is required for it to be valid, and this case did not meet those requirements. The judges submitting dismissal opinions did not consider the grounds for impeachment any further. Justice Jeong is the presiding judge in the impeachment trial of President Yoon Seok-yeol.
Additionally, Justice Jeong Gye-seon expressed an acceptance opinion. He determined that regarding the reasons for impeachment against Prime Minister Han, specifically 'regarding the delay in recommending candidates for the special prosecutor' and 'the refusal to appoint three Constitutional Court justices,' 'violations of the Constitution and laws are acknowledged, and the severity of those violations is sufficient to justify dismissal.' Justice Jeong is a member of the progressive judge group, the Korean Law Research Association.