The Seoul High Court postponed the retrial of the case against Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party of Korea candidate for violating the Public Official Election Act, to after the presidential election on the 7th, sparking controversy within the court system. While the Supreme Court issued a ruling to overturn the decision just 9 days after referring it to a full bench, judges on the ground are raising various concerns regarding the situation in which the Seoul High Court delayed the trial date on the same day that Lee requested a change of schedule. There are even calls for a nationwide judges' conference to be convened.
A Director General of a court in the metropolitan area said, "It is sufficient to interpret the Seoul High Court's changing of the trial date as succumbing to pressure from the Democratic Party in a situation where Chief Justice Cho Hee-daeg emphasized the need for a speedy trial."
Another Director General noted, "It is incomprehensible that the Seoul High Court scheduled the trial for two weeks after the Supreme Court's overturning, and then immediately postponed it to after the presidential election when Lee applied for a change," adding that "the stance of wanting to conduct a speedy trial seems to have changed to trial delay in just a few days."
On this day, the Democratic Party of Korea passed an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act in the National Assembly's Judiciary Committee, which states that "if a defendant is elected president, ongoing trials will be suspended." Currently, candidate Lee Jae-myung faces five trials on 12 charges, and the intention is to exempt him from all trials if he is elected president. Additionally, the Democratic Party also passed a plan in the National Assembly's Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing with Chief Justice Cho Hee-daeg on the 14th.
In response, a judge from the Southern District Court stated, "In a situation where the Democratic Party mentions the impeachment of the Chief Justice, it could appear that the court hastily accepted Lee's request for a schedule change, which could be seen as yielding to external pressure," and added that "the court has caused controversy regarding the independence of the judiciary."
Another judge stated, "It is also problematic that some judges have written coercive messages on the court's internal bulletin board, urging the Seoul High Court to halt proceedings or change schedules, participating in the actions of the Democratic Party while discussing the Chief Justice's responsibility."
In fact, posts raising questions about the responsibility of Chief Justice Cho Hee-daeg have appeared on the court's internal bulletin board. A Director General from the Seoul Central District Court wrote, "The Supreme Court is hurrying to reach a conclusion while ignoring the principles of each regulation and continually applying exceptions, prompting remarks such as whether the justices have reviewed 70,000 pages of records in rendering their decision." He further stated, "After the Supreme Court overturns, it is the High Court that should rectify the mistakes, and if a ruling candidate is elected while their eligibility to run is stripped, frustrated and angry citizens will call for election invalidation, civil disobedience against the judiciary, and demands for judges' impeachment, and I wonder if the Supreme Court can handle that chaos."
Some judges have called for the convening of a nationwide judges' conference. The nationwide judges' conference is an organization where judges from all levels of courts discuss judicial administration and advise the Chief Justice.
Director General A stated, "Chief Justice Cho Hee-daeg has become the vanguard of the anti-Lee Jae-myung political struggle," urging that "he should resign immediately." Director General B mentioned, "The nationwide judges' conference should demonstrate efforts for self-cleaning, such as declaring neutrality in elections."
In response, Kim Yae-young, the chairperson of the nationwide judges' conference and a Director General at the Southern District Court of Seoul, stated, "We are discussing whether to hold an emergency meeting and agenda in our group chat, and the operational committee is discussing whether to exercise the chair's authority to convene."
However, many judges are expressing concerns about the possibility that the posts of some judges on the court's internal bulletin board could be perceived as representing the opinions of all judges.
A judge from a court outside of the metropolitan area stated, "It is difficult to say that the critical posts about the Supreme Court and justices appearing on CourtNet represent the thoughts of the court."
A senior judge from a court outside the metropolitan area remarked, "The Supreme Court has only judged (Lee's) past actions according to the Public Official Election Act," adding that "it has not judged whether he will run in the next presidential election."
Additionally, another Director General from a court in the metropolitan area stated, "Didn't the Constitutional Court also handle the presidential impeachment quickly?" and noted that "the Supreme Court processed Lee's election law violation case at an appropriate time for significant cases."