The National Judicial Representatives Conference decided to discuss a motion expressing regret over the Supreme Court's ruling and process regarding Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party of Korea's presidential candidate, at a temporary meeting held on the 26th. However, the decision on whether to express an official position on the motion will take place at a meeting after the June 3 presidential election.
The National Judicial Representatives Conference conducted the meeting for about 2 hours and 20 minutes starting at 10 a.m. on the same day. The meeting was officially convened with the attendance of 88 out of 126 judges.
In addition to the official motions already on the agenda, five additional motions were proposed and added during the meeting. The existing motions included ▲ confirmation of the value of judicial independence and efforts to ensure judicial fairness and democratic accountability of the judiciary ▲ expression of concern over shaken public trust in the judiciary and potential violations of judicial independence.
Among the additional motions was one concerning the electoral law appeal of the candidate. Some judges previously requested the convening of this meeting, arguing that there were issues with the Supreme Court's decision and process, which overturned the conviction regarding the candidate's violation of the Public Official Election Act.
The third motion added that day expressed deep regret over 'the unprecedented procedural conduct of the Supreme Court regarding a specific case, which raises doubts about the political neutrality and procedural legitimacy of the judiciary, leading to a loss of trust in the judiciary, and also voiced concern and opposition to political attempts that could result in serious infringements on judicial independence beyond legitimate criticism of this matter.'
Another motion added that expressed, 'We severely recognize the negative impact of the Supreme Court's plenary decision on public trust in the judiciary, and we are deeply concerned that excessive accountability demands based on this ruling could infringe upon judicial independence.' The meeting is expected to discuss whether to officially express the position that 'under no circumstances will we compromise political neutrality and we will continue to strive for fair trials.'
In the legal community, the contents included in these motions, such as 'specific case' and 'Supreme Court's plenary ruling,' are seen to refer to the candidate's electoral law case. A legal professional stated, 'The intent of the law is to deliver a verdict as soon as possible regarding the electoral law case, and it is hard to understand that frontline judges raise issues about the Supreme Court swiftly conducting the trial.'
Additionally, the meeting included motions stating, 'We declare that proceeding with special investigations, impeachment, and hearing procedures against judges who have issued rulings goes against the independence of judicial authority and urge prevention of recurrence,' and 'We recognize that the politicization of judicial matters, wherein political issues are resolved in the judicial system, poses a significant threat to judicial independence.'
Furthermore, a motion was presented stating, 'We confirm that judicial independence is an absolute value that must be guaranteed in a free democratic state, and we express our commitment to ensuring freedom, equality, and justice in trials.' The meeting is set to deeply discuss concerns regarding various accountability demands and changes to the system related to individual trials that could infringe upon judicial independence and to discuss future measures.
However, no votes were conducted on the motions during the meeting. The Judicial Representatives Conference decided to reconvene after the presidential election to be held on June 3, where supplementary discussions and votes on the motions will be conducted.
A representative from the Judicial Representatives Conference noted, 'Amid concerns that the judicial reform emerged as a subject during the recent presidential election process, there was worry that voting on the motions could impact the election. After discussions among the members, it was decided that it would be better to continue the meeting.'