The National Judges Representatives Conference temporary meeting began at 10 a.m. on the 26th and concluded after approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes. The meeting was held following the Supreme Court's ruling that overturned and remanded the case against Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party of Korea presidential candidate, for violating the Public Official Election Act; however, no conclusion was reached. The meeting will be resumed after the June 3 presidential election.

Kim Yeyoung, the Director General of the Seoul Southern District Court, is declaring the opening at the National Judge Representatives Conference held at the Judicial Research and Training Institute in Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si, on the 26th. /Courtesy of News1

After the meeting concluded, a representative from the National Judges Representatives Conference met with reporters and noted, "We have concluded today's temporary meeting and decided to continue the discussion." The meeting took place with the attendance of 88 out of 126 members. The date for the next meeting is expected to be set after the presidential election on June 3.

There was no vote on the agenda items presented at the meeting. Regarding the decision to continue the meeting, a representative from the Judges Representatives Conference said, "As judicial reform has emerged as an issue during the recent presidential election process, there were concerns that voting on the agenda (items) would influence the election," adding, "After discussions among members, it was decided that it would be better to continue the meeting."

It was reported that in addition to the previously presented agenda items, five new agenda items were proposed on-site and added to the agenda. The Judges Representatives Conference will conduct supplementary discussions and voting on the agenda items at the next meeting.

There are two official agenda items previously presented to the Judges Representatives Conference. One is to affirm that "judicial independence must be an absolute value guaranteed in a democratic state, and at the same time, to pledge efforts to uphold the fairness of judgments and the democratic accountability of the judiciary."

The other is to express that "we are deeply concerned about the serious recognition that the trust in the judiciary, which is the foundation of judicial independence, has been shaken, and that various accountability pursuits and institutional changes based on individual trials may infringe upon judicial independence."

※ This article has been translated by AI. Share your feedback here.