[오병상의 코멘터리] The judge’s impeachment is necessary, but it’s late.

One.

The National Assembly votes on impeachment of Judge Seong-geun Lim on the 4th.

It’s a first-of-its-kind and politically sensitive timing, so the politicians on the 3rd are upset.
The arguments of the opposition parties are very different. The ruling party calls the impeachment “judicial reform”, and the opposition party calls it “taming judges.”
The same goes for public opinion. According to Real Meter’s announcement on the 3rd, 44.3% in favor of the impeachment and 45.4% against the impeachment are tight.

2.

When matters are complex, you have to start with principles.

Impeachment of judges is a necessary system.
It is the legislative check against the judiciary. The separation of powers is the purpose of preventing abuse of power through mutual checks.

Of course, the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the court must be preserved. So, there has never been a judge’s impeachment.

But if the judge is really wrong, someone has to check it.
The place that has the power to check is the National Assembly. Of course, the final decision is made by the Constitutional Court.

3.

If so, the key is’Is Seong-geun Lim’s actions really wrong enough to be impeached?’

The court’s ruling against Seong-geun Lim makes me feel.
In 2015, Seong-geun Im was convicted of interfering in the trial process of the Sankei Shimbun Seoul Bureau chief (Tatsuya Kato) as chief of the Central District Court, and was found “not guilty” in February last year.

On the day of the Sewol ferry incident (April 16, 2014), Kato wrote an article stating that “President Park Geun-hye met the non-elect Jeong Yoon-hoe (husband Choi Sun-sil).”
Of course not. Nevertheless, he was recognized for freedom of the press and became innocent.

4.

The starting point of the problem was Park Geun-hye’s Blue House.
It is not true that I met Jeong Yoon-hoe, and I think I wanted to highlight the fact that’Kato’s act is wrong,’ although acquittal is inevitable.

The second issue was the court administration.
The administration department, which received the Blue House’s intentions directly or indirectly, put pressure on the judge in charge through Lim Seong-geun. Reflect the Blue House request in the judgment.

The third problem is Seong-geun Lim.
In addition to delivering the request of the administration to the judge in charge, the judgment was reported, confirmed, and reported to the administration.

5.

It was according to the strict interpretation of the court that Im Sung-geun was never guilty of being acquitted.

Although Seong-geun Lim’s actions are’unconstitutional’, it is concluded that Seong-geun Lim does not have the authority to perform such acts, so it is’not subject to ex officio abuse’. The criminal court sentenced him to’innocent under the criminal law’ in accordance with the’criminal legalism’.

Still, it was stated in the ruling that Lim Sung-geun’s involvement with the judge was’unconstitutional because it violated the judge’s independence in trial.

6.

According to the ruling, whether it is’unconstitutional’ is not a matter to be contested in the criminal court, but a matter to be dealt with in the National Assembly and the Constitutional Court.

Therefore, it is a matter to be prosecuted by the National Assembly. The same judge made it that way.

Nevertheless, it is’timing’ that is bound to receive political criticism for this impeachment prosecution.
Politics is timing. Because the political intention is questionable.

7.

The Moon Jae-in regime has been calling for judicial reform even before it was launched.

On November 19, 2018, the National Judges’ Council adopted a resolution calling for the’impeachment of the judicial and agricultural judges’.
It was delivered to the Supreme Court Chief Kim Myung-soo. The Democratic Party said it would’review’. But nothing happened.

The sentence stating that Seong-geun Lim’s conduct was’unconstitutional’ was February 14, 2020. Still, the Democrats were silent.
The real timing has passed.

8.

Recently, the court rescued Yun Suk-yeol, arrested the court, and beat the pro-legal gangster Choi Kang-wook for’deprivation of lawmaker’.

Suddenly, 161 lawmakers initiated impeachment.
Parents are attacking lawmakers who did not participate in the joint initiative, claiming to be’traitors’.
There is no choice but to be suspicious of political interests rather than real judicial reform.

Of course, I believe in the sincerity of Democrat Lee Tan-hee, who led the impeachment. He himself threw out the judgeship for judicial reform and has consistently made the same arguments…

9.

Im Seong-geun will be unfair.

In fact, the Blue House and the National Assembly have always been involved in judges through the court administration. It was revealed in the indictment of Deputy Chief Im Jong-Heon, who was the request window of the Court Administration Department during Park Geun-hye’s days.

Democratic Party lawmaker Seo Young-gyo turned out to be a request to’lower the sentence of his acquaintance’, but he is still active in duty.

Why is only Im Seong-geun, who was faithful to the practice, impeached?
Judicial reform is meaningful only when the causes of the Blue House and the National Assembly are reformed together.

10.

Im Seong-geun will be unfair, but it seems there is no need to worry too much.
Because there is not much possibility of impeachment.

Even if prosecuted by the National Assembly, it is highly likely to be dismissed by the Constitutional Court. Im Seong-geun retired after his term of office in late February.

Of course, in the constitution, a trial can be conducted to examine whether or not Im Sung-geun’s actions were unconstitutional. It would mean to organize the standards of judicial nongdan.
I wouldn’t be unable to open a lawyer.

2021.02.03.