[주장] Rather, the impeachment of Judge Im Seong-geun was late.

In the National Assembly, the’impeachment prosecution of judge of Gukjeong Nongdan (Lim Seong-geun)’ was passed. It was the first in the history of dedication.

Lee Tan-hee, a Democratic Party member who initiated the impeachment prosecution, said, “Let’s fulfill the constitutional obligations of the National Assembly that have been postponed for political reasons at every turn.” It’s about making sure you’re doing it.” Rep. Kim Ki-hyun of the People’s Power said, “What is the impeachment of a judge at a time when the public welfare problem is urgent?” and “If you have to impeach a judge, the first target is Supreme Court Chief Kim Myung-soo.”

However, the motion of the impeachment prosecution is sufficiently persuasive when looking at the reasons for the first trial’s innocence against Judge Lim Seong-geun, head of the Busan High Court. This is because, while being a judge, he is acquitted by taking advantage of the court’s family members and making it clear that Judge Im’s actions are contrary to the constitutional values.

Im Seong-geun impeachment prosecution is convincing

View larger picture
▲ Impeachment proceedings for the first judges in the Constitutional History, submission of the constitution Democratic Party Rep. Park Ju-min (right) and Lee Tan-hee, along with the National Assembly Legislative Judicial Committee, are submitting the original copy of the resolution on the impeachment of Judge Im Seong-geun at the annex of the Constitutional Court in Jae-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul on the afternoon of the 4th.
Ⓒ Yonhap News	View related photos

Judge Im Seong-geun was suspicious of intervening in related trials, such as “Seven Hours of the Sewol ferry,” as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Yang Seung-tae, and the prosecution indicted it after an investigation. However, he was found not guilty. After that, the appeal, and the trial of the appeal trial is currently underway. Also, as Judge Lim is scheduled to retire at the end of February (because he did not apply for re-appointment), attention is focused on how the Constitutional Court will judge the bill of impeachment of the National Assembly.

The impeachment of the judges is decided only after obtaining the consent of at least six of the nine judges of the Constitutional Court, and they are dismissed by the decision of impeachment. If the constitution decides to impeach, he will not be able to take office for five years, and the registration of lawyers will be prohibited.

During the Korean Constitutional History, impeachment of judges has been attempted twice, but neither has reached prosecution. In 1985, during the 12th National Assembly, unfair personnel against Supreme Court Chief Yoo Tae-heung became controversial, and attempted to process an impeachment prosecution, but was rejected. It was automatically discarded.

Conservative forces, including the people’s strength, over the impeachment prosecution against Judge Im Seong-geun are in the form of strong opposition, saying, “Tambling the judges” and “Trimming the court”. Judge Lim, the party concerned, did not even investigate by the judiciary committee, but expressed dissatisfaction with the hastily passed the prosecution.

embarrassed

Impeachment proceedings against Judge Im Seong-geun leaves shame in many ways. First of all, for the first time in the history of the constitution, impeachment proceedings were made against judges. Since Korean judges are morally superior and have acted with a complete conscience legally, there is nothing to say unless there was anything that could lead to impeachment. However, if impeachment has not been carried out in spite of these and other errors, it is in the end that the National Assembly has failed to fulfill its role.

In the meantime, the abuse of judges has been a problem several times, and some have been convicted. However, even if the conviction was not reached, it is true that there were cases where such misconduct went against the constitutional values. There have also been times when court judges have been convicted of being acquitted for their family-wide attitude.

Nevertheless, the fact that the impeachment of the judges was not even discussed is that they did not exercise the rights of the National Assembly prescribed in the constitution. At the same time, the National Assembly, which had to check the judiciary, failed to fulfill its role. It’s a point that I can’t help but be ashamed of.

The subject of the impeachment prosecution is’the president, the prime minister, a member of the state council, the head of each administrative department, a judge of the Constitutional Court, a judge, a member of the Central Election Commission, the director of the audit committee, a member of the audit committee, and other public officials prescribed by law. In case of violating the Constitution or laws, the National Assembly may decide on a prosecution for impeachment (Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution). In the case of prosecutors, Article 37 of the Prosecutors’ Office Act is prescribed as the subject of impeachment.

The reason why the constitution defines judges as the subject of impeachment seems to be that even if a judge is prosecuted and tried, there is a possibility that he will be found acquitted by fellow judges. Prosecutors are also subject to impeachment in the Prosecutors’ Office Act because there is a risk that the prosecution itself will not be carried out with the attitude of being surrounded by fellow prosecutors. In the case of prosecutors or judges, even if it is not a specific violation of the law, it is naturally interpreted as a ground for impeachment if an act contrary to the spirit of the constitution.

Anyway, in the case of prosecutors and judges, compared to other public officials, they are more likely to evade the judgment of the law with the help of their own legal knowledge or the help of their peers, so the reason for impeachment should be interpreted broadly.

Allegations of’trial intervention’

Judge Im Seong-geun was investigated for intervening in the trial of former Seoul branch director Tatsuya Kato, who was accused of defaming former President Park Geun-hye in relation to the so-called “Seven Hours of the Sewol ferry,” and a prosecution was filed after being investigated.

Not only that. In the judgment that was registered after being sentenced at the time of the judgment on the case of the arrest of attorneys belonging to the Association of Attorneys for Democratic Society (Minbyun) for preventing the judgment to submit the summary order trial to a formal trial in the 2016 professional baseball player gambling case. They are also charged with correcting the reasons for sentencing and removing some of them.

The judge who pleaded not guilty to Judge Lim thought that Judge Im’s actions were’inappropriate’ because they were contrary to the constitutional values, but they were subject to disciplinary action because they did not specifically violate the law. The court admits that “The Deputy Judge Im’s involvement in the trial is to intervene in the judicial affairs of the judge,” but “Rather, it is an unconstitutional act that infringes on the independence of a judge by using the (at the time) position or personal relationship of The reason for innocence was that, “It is an extension of the criminal constituent requirements against the accused by making the Deputy Chief Judge’s conduct unconstitutional.” Revealed.

In addition, the judge said, “The trial of the agreement is judged according to the agreement, and since it is independent from the will of the judge, the judge cannot decide it by himself. The chief judges (at the request of a judge) do not follow the request unconditionally and their own legal judgment “The cause-and-effect relationship was cut off between the request of the Chief Judge Lim and the judicial affairs of the judiciary to which the Chief Judge belonged. The judge in charge of other matters was also in charge of other matters as well. He explained the reason for his innocence, saying, “The causal relationship between the request of the Chief Judge Lim and the summary order was cut off by making an independent decision after hearing the opinions of fellow judges.”

The appeal trial trial against Judge Im Seong-geun, who was found not guilty in the first trial, is in progress, but there seems to be little dispute over facts. However, it only matters how to apply the law to the confirmed facts.

If you read the reason for the judgment in detail, the traces of the court’s distress to bring out innocence are evident. Yet, reluctantly, he has repeatedly revealed that Judge Lim’s actions are against the spirit of the constitution.

It is clear that Judge Seong-geun Lim’s actions were not appropriate as judges. Furthermore, despite the innocence, it can be fully admitted that it is against the constitutional values.

When you need’Soojisim’

Rather, it is contrary to the spirit of separation of powers that the National Assembly has not initiated an impeachment prosecution. The’impeachment proceedings against judges’ given to the National Assembly are an effective and appropriate means to check the judiciary. If you wish to properly embody the spirit of the Korean Constitution, and if you want to be recognized as a normal country pursuing the rule of law, the impeachment prosecution against Judge Im is late. As soon as the prosecutor was prosecuted, at least as soon as he was found not guilty in the first trial court, he should have initiated an impeachment proposal.

It is a shame to refute the proposal for impeachment proceedings promoted by the National Assembly with political logic, despite the apparent facts. This is also a shame because the Democratic Party has also postponed the proposal for impeachment proceedings, and reluctantly initiated a proposal for impeachment proceedings with less than a month left for Judge Im’s term of office to expire.

I would like to ask whether it is okay to repeat the same behavior as Judge Im by other judges in the future. Judges should have the attitude of Suo Ji-shim (a heart that is ashamed of one’s own wrongdoings and hates others’ wrongs) over the impeachment prosecution against Judge Im. In the end, the’late impeachment motion’ against Judge Im Seong-geun was a crime of failing to properly uphold the values ​​of our Constitution. In fact, it’s something everyone should be ashamed of.