Chun Dae-yup, the Minister of Court Administration (Supreme Court justice), said on the 13th regarding the Supreme Court's remand ruling in President Lee Jae-myung's Public Official Election Act case that "the majority opinion of the justices was that 'justice delayed is justice denied.'"
The Minister appeared at the National Assembly for the Supreme Court's audit that day and explained the remand process in President Lee's Public Official Election Act case, saying, "If you read the judgment two or three times, it clearly shows how the en banc decision came about through such a course and what debates took place."
The Minister refuted, point by point, the Democratic Party of Korea lawmakers' allegation that the chief justice interfered in the presidential election. Responding to the Democratic Party lawmakers' claim that "the chief justice, seeking to intervene in the presidential election, referred to the en banc (full bench) a case that had been assigned to a small panel (a subsection composed of four justices)," the Minister cited the minority opinion written in the judgment to rebut it.
The Minister stressed, "Even the minority opinion states that, in principle, this case should be handled by the en banc court and does not at all raise an issue about infringing the small panel's authority to deliberate," adding, "It amounts to the minority opinion also stating that there was no illegality in the procedural aspect of hearing the case en banc."
He also explained why the Supreme Court en banc swiftly handed down a ruling in President Lee's case. He first said, "Two of the minority justices say, 'Wasn't the case insufficiently ripened by the time of the judgment?'" and added, "The opinion sets out in detail the circumstances compelling that view, and I think there are certainly parts worthy of respect."
Even so, he added, "If you look at the judgment, conversely, 10 justices in the majority say that 'justice delayed is not justice, and our Constitution and laws guarantee the right to a speedy trial,'" and "they note in particular that this case was delayed by as much as 2 years and 2 months at the first instance from indictment, and by 4 months even at the second instance before a judgment."
Chun continued, "It says that 'the key issues are not complex, and the main issues are legal evaluations, so the justices promptly began identifying factual issues based on the first-instance and appellate (second-instance) judgments and the trial records, and as soon as all briefs were filed, they immediately reviewed them and then held two en banc sessions to set the ruling date,'" adding, "It appears the majority justices sufficiently rebut the minority's sharp criticism in their own way."
The Minister also said there was sufficient time to thoroughly review the case records. He said, "The majority concurring opinion notes that the justices began a meticulous review as soon as the records first arrived," adding, "If they started reviewing the records on Mar. 28, there was about a 25-day window until Apr. 22, the en banc date. During that period, the justices would have carefully examined the records."
The Minister also voiced concern, saying, "A judge cannot avoid rendering judgments, but if a situation arises where one has to appear before the National Assembly to be investigated over the procedural or substantive aspects of a single judgment's outcome, many judges may feel some doubt about continuing in judicial office," adding, "I worry that could cause a serious disruption to Korea's judiciary."
There was also mention of the "entertainment establishment hospitality allegation" concerning Jee Kui-youn, a presiding judge at the Seoul Central District Court who is overseeing the insurrection case against former President Yoon Suk-yeol. In response to Democratic Party lawmaker Park Kyun-taek's question suggesting, "Didn't you effectively give Director General Jee a free pass?" Supreme Court Inspector General Choi Jin-su said, "The statements of the three people — Director General Jee and the related attorneys surnamed Yoon and Lee — were consistent," adding, "On the current evidence, it is difficult to conclude there are grounds for disciplinary action for misconduct."
Inspector General Choi added that a final decision would be made after the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials announces its investigation results.