With the promulgation on the 12th of the so-called "three judicial laws," a sweeping overhaul of the judicial system has begun. While the measures tout expanded rights remedies and stronger judicial accountability, voices in the legal community warn of aftershocks, including the de facto introduction of a four-tier appeals system and a shrinking judiciary.
The three judicial laws can be summarized as: ▲ introduction of a retrial petition that allows people to challenge court rulings again at the Constitutional Court ▲ amendments to the Criminal Act to punish distortions of law by judges, prosecutors, and others in criminal cases ▲ amendments to the Court Organization Act to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26. The retrial petition and the offense of legal distortion took effect that day, and the increase in Supreme Court justices will be carried out over three years starting two years after promulgation.
Judging only by the purpose of the system, it puts forward expanding rights remedies and strengthening judicial accountability. However, the legal community warns that introducing the retrial petition could effectively create a four-tier appeals system and trigger side effects such as more criminal complaints against judges and prosecutors and a weakening of lower courts. From the public's perspective, there are also concerns that case resolution will be delayed and expense and uncertainty will grow.
◇ Retrial petition: "Expanded remedies" vs. "De facto four-tier appeals system"
A retrial petition is a system that allows a person who claims that a final judgment violated fundamental rights to seek review again at the Constitutional Court. Not only Supreme Court judgments but also finalized first- and second-instance judgments can be subject to it. The intent is to give people who feel wronged by trial outcomes one more chance at a final decision.
Opponents argue that for this reason the retrial petition could function as a de facto "four-tier appeals system." If a case continues even after the final appeal, people could have to wait a long time for a conclusion. If losing parties in most cases seek Constitutional Court review, the practical end point of litigation could be pushed back further.
The Constitutional Court proposed setting up a separate preliminary review panel to examine only whether the Constitution was violated, but concerns remain that even just transmitting records and assigning cases could create a significant burden.
An attorney at a law firm in Seocho-dong said, "It is clear that more time and expense will go into future litigation," adding, "Given the strong perception in Korean legal culture that 'you have to go all the way to the final appeal,' even if the Constitutional Court conducts preliminary screening, a flood of applications would be a heavy burden."
◇ Offense of legal distortion: "Blocking arbitrary application of law" vs. "Self-protective rulings"
The offense of legal distortion punishes judges, prosecutors, and investigative officials involved in criminal trials or investigations who distort the law to give others unlawful or unjust benefits or to harm their rights and interests. The intent is to hold people accountable for arbitrary application of the law.
The problem is that the criteria are unclear for what counts as a difference in legal interpretation and what constitutes "distortion" subject to criminal punishment. There are concerns that parties dissatisfied with judgments or investigative results could immediately file complaints or accusations against judges or prosecutors, and that this alone could have a chilling effect.
It also raises the possibility that judges will choose safer conclusions rather than present new legal principles in contentious cases, and that investigative agencies will act more cautiously to avoid responsibility. In that case, the public may have to accept more conservative and slower trials and investigations.
A lawyer who previously served as a senior presiding judge said, "You have to guarantee judges a sphere of conscience for judicial independence to be maintained," adding, "In the end, this is likely to shrink the judiciary."
◇ More Supreme Court justices may speed up top-court rulings, but could weaken lower courts
The increase in Supreme Court justices will add four per year from 2028 to 2030, shifting to a 26-justice system. The intent is to reduce the burden of appeals cases and conduct fuller reviews. There are also expectations that the time to receive a Supreme Court decision could shrink.
However, opponents argue that if only the number of Supreme Court justices increases, the judiciary could take on an "inverted pyramid" structure. As the number of justices grows, more research judges and support staff will be needed to assist them, which could reduce staffing for first- and second-instance trials and thereby weaken lower courts.
There are also concerns that, since most people encounter first- and second-instance trials more often than appeals, reinforcing the top layer could actually reduce the thoroughness of trials on the ground.
Centered on the opposition party, concerns also persist that the number of Supreme Court justices a president can appoint during a term will rise sharply, leading to controversy over the judiciary's political neutrality. In the end, for the three judicial laws that took effect that day, there are projections that debate will focus more on the time, expense, and trust issues the public will have to bear after implementation than on the measures' stated intent.