The panel that will hear the first trial of Jee Kui-youn, a Seoul Northern District Court Director General judge indicted over alleged "entertaining with alcohol," has been changed. The case was initially assigned to a judge who trained with Jee at the Judicial Research and Training Institute, but the judge requested reassignment, saying it could raise concerns about fairness.
The Seoul Central District Court said on the 8th that the case of the Director General judge Jee on charges of violating the anti-graft law was reassigned to Criminal Division 10 single-judge bench presided over by Director General Judge Lee Jae-uk. Earlier, Jee's case had been assigned to Criminal Division 4 single-judge bench presided over by Director General Judge Park Kang-gyun. Director General Judge Park and Director General Judge Jee are both from the 31st class of the Judicial Research and Training Institute.
Director General Judge Park then said, "Because the presiding judge is of the same class at the Judicial Research and Training Institute, there are concerns about misunderstandings regarding the fairness of the trial," and requested reassignment. The court also conducted a random computerized assignment and reassigned the case that day to Criminal Division 10 single-judge bench.
The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) on the 4th indicted Director General Judge Jee without detention on charges of having received entertainment at a so-called "reservation-only bar" from attorneys within the jurisdiction.
According to the CIO, in Aug. 2023, Director General Judge Jee had two attorneys pay 4.09 million won at a reservation-only bar in Cheongdam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and is suspected of receiving entertainment exceeding 1 million won on one occasion. However, the CIO decided not to indict on the bribery charge, saying it is difficult to conclude there was quid pro quo for the entertainment.
Director General Judge Jee was also said to have completely denied the allegations to the CIO, saying in effect "I do not remember." Jee's attorney also said in a statement, "We cannot hide our dismay at the CIO's overreaching findings of fact and application of the law and find it deeply regrettable."