On the morning of the 22nd, Lee Tan-hee, a member of the Democratic Party and Democratic Party, is holding a press conference with the Open Democrats Kang Min-jeong, Ryu Ho-jeong Justice Party, and Yong Hye-in of the Basic Income Party at the National Assembly Communication Hall to propose the’impeachment of the judges of the Judicial Nongdan. Reporter Park Jong-min-It is expected that the passport will initiate an impeachment proceeding against a judge for the first time in constitutional history. In addition, the Democratic Party agreed to allow impeachment of the head of the Busan High Court Judge Im Seong-geun at a parliamentary meeting held on the 28th. Although it will not be promoted at the party level, it will not prevent the proposal for impeachment of individual members of the lawmakers.
It is said that 111 lawmakers, including the Justice Party and the Open Democratic Party, have already agreed to the impeachment prosecution. If the number of Democratic Party members is 174 and secures an absolute majority and is presented to the National Assembly under circumstances, the passage will be certain.
The reason for the impeachment is that it violated the constitution-guaranteed “independence of judges” by unfairly intervening in the trial of Kato Tatsuya, the head of the Sankei Shimbun, who raised the suspicion of the seven hours of the Sewol ferry by former President Park Geun-hye.
When Judge Lim was the chief criminal officer of the Seoul Central District Court, he asked the judge in charge of this case to “include in the judgment that the column is not true,” and is charged with unfairly engaging in the judge’s decision. In this regard, Judge Lim was charged with abuse of authority and is currently undergoing a second trial.
The first trial court sentenced him not guilty of abuse of authority, but admitted that Judge Lim intervened in the trial, and the passport is pursuing impeachment on the basis of this.
In the meantime, there have been two motions for impeachment against the Supreme Court, but there has never been a motion for impeachment proceedings against a judge. The two cases of impeachment of the Supreme Court Justice were also rejected by the National Assembly, and the case of Judge Lim, if proposed, is highly likely to pass.
The opposition parties raised their voices to tame the judiciary of the passport in order to induce a ruling that suits the regime’s taste for the impeachment promotion. It cannot be said that there is no such intention. In fact, most of the convictions were convicted in courts involving the former Minister of Justice Cho Kook, and passport officials also showed outright resentment to the judiciary.
However, in the aspect that the reason for impeachment is not about the wrongfulness of the ruling, but the point that unjustly influenced the ruling, the opposition’s argument has the side of being halved.
Some have questioned the effectiveness of the impeachment, citing that Judge Im will retire next month. It is also true that even if the impeachment is resolved by the National Assembly, it is difficult to take effect before retirement, considering the necessary procedures such as the final decision of the Constitutional Court.
However, regardless of whether it is effective or not, the impeachment prosecution itself has the meaning of the political, social, and judicial aspects. This is because it has the effect of reminding that the importance of the independence of the judiciary is once again imprinted, and that even judges must take responsibility for actions that are not appropriate for their job. It can be helpful for the development of the judiciary to make use of the purpose of the system by properly operating the rules for impeachment prosecution against judges, which have been privately cultured so far.
Obviously, independence and security doesn’t mean that you can’t be held accountable at all costs. Unfortunately, it is difficult to deny that our judiciary has been protected even by the irrational judgment and incompetence of judges, leaning on the powerful constitutional authority.
Last year, when the court sentenced the child sexual exploiter Son Jung-woo to 1 year in prison, a foreign reporter caught the attention of the Korean media by reporting an article stating that in Korea the prisoner for stealing a hungry egg was the same. . This ruling, which has become a mockery of the international community, is an embarrassing and regrettable self-portrait by our judiciary.
It has become natural for the people to mobilize all kinds of sub-argumentary logic to preempt people with high status and wealth. ‘Digital prisons’ even appeared, saying that they would punish them directly.
Even now, the law reflected in the eyes of the Korean people is’a earring on an ear, an earring on a nose, and a nose ring’. The reality that shows the deep-rooted distrust of the judiciary in general requires the judiciary to repent painfully.
In the background of the absurd and absurd rulings, the food chain of the legal profession to change the discretion of judges for money, and the incompetence of some judges, whose ability to discriminate and emotionally decline.
Until now, the judiciary has a powerful authority and has exerted enormous influence on our society through its judgment, but it has not been checked by anyone. Now, in line with the progress of democratization and the increased level of public consciousness, the judiciary also needs to change, and it needs to be stimulated to change.
The judiciary is the final judge who judges right and wrong in our society, and its judgments and decisions become the rules and standards that support the community. When the judiciary is healthy, our society can also develop healthy. We must be so wise and fair and fair.
By all means, I hope that this impeachment will allow our society to reconsider the issue of independence of the judiciary, which is the core value of democracy, which should never be damaged, and the judiciary will be able to look back on itself calmly.
–
