 |
| Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo is on the morning of the 5th to work at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. 2021.2.5/News1 © News1 Reporter Kiseon Hwang |
While Supreme Court Chief Kim Myung-soo, who held a truth battle with Busan High Court Chief Judge Im Seong-geun over whether the judge’s impeachment remarks, “the memory was unclear,” apologized, and the aftermath of the false clarification of Chief Justice Kim is intensifying.
In addition to the politicians’ remarks confirmed in the transcript of Chief Justice Kim, the impeachment of the first vice-president judge in the constitutional affairs was carried out, and the judiciary seems to be plunging into confusion.
According to the legal community on the 5th, since the 4th when the transcripts of Chief Justice Kim and Chief Justice Lim were released, fewer accusations against Chief Justice Kim and the opposition party have been urged to resign. In the afternoon of that day, Judge Lim made a statement stating, “The impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Kim must precede,” up to 140 people during the 17th term of the Judicial Research and Training Institute.
The controversy began with reports that when Chief Justice Lim resigned for deteriorating health last year, Chief Justice Kim rejected it, saying, “If I receive the resignation, it will not be possible to be impeached.”
The Supreme Court denied that on the 3rd when the report came out, “at the request of Deputy Chief Judge Im, Supreme Court Chief Kim had an interview at the end of May last year, but there was no fact that he said that the resignation could not be accepted due to the issue of impeachment.”
However, on the afternoon of the 3rd, the situation spread to the truth studio as Judge Lim made a stance on the afternoon of the 3rd, saying, “The Supreme Court inevitably reveals his position in order to confirm the facts.” Deputy Judge Lim argued that it was mentioned with the intent that’At the time, Supreme Court Chief Kim could not be able to discuss impeachment in the National Assembly and thus could be criticized.
On the morning of the 4th, a recorded transcript of the conversation between Chief Justice Kim and Judge Lim was released. In the transcript, Supreme Court Chief Kim mentioned the impeachment story to Deputy Chief Judge Im, with the intention that the resignation could not be accepted.
When the transcript came out, the Supreme Court stated, “We apologize for responding differently from the previous answer that relied on unclear memories of about nine months ago.” Supreme Court Chief Kim also commented on his way home from work on the 4th, “Nearly nine months after we met, the memories were faint and we had a lot of conversations between the two, so we couldn’t remember them properly.”
 |
| The people’s power impeachment transaction fact-finding group is being blocked by security personnel in front of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the morning of the 5th. 2021.2.5/News1 © News1 Reporter Kiseon Hwang |
As the transcripts were released, the clarification of Chief Justice Kim’s explanation was revealed as false, followed by accusations by civic groups. On the 4th, the solidarity of action to set the rule of law right, said Chief Justice Kim spread false facts and abandoned his duties to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office.
Civic group active bindan held a press conference in front of the great prosecutors this morning and filed an accusation on charges of abuse of authority, saying, “The head of the judiciary, who was supposed to prevent the draft of political power, undermined the independence and democracy values of the judiciary in view of the government’s attention.” did.
In the conservative opposition, offensive against Chief Justice Kim continued. Kim Jong-in, chairman of the People’s Power Emergency Response Committee, held an emergency press conference at the National Assembly on this day and said, “The appearance of the head of the judiciary, refusing to accept the resignation for fear of being politically criticized, and offering a junior judge as an impeachment sacrifice, is a shock itself.” It is the least way to make atonement for the people just by resigning themselves.”
Ho-young Joo said at the party’s in-house countermeasures meeting, “Not only did Supreme Court Chief Kim Myung-soo make a remark (through the transcript) that seemed to push a junior judge into impeachment, but also tried to go over it with a lie.” I can’t stand it because I’m ashamed.”
Five members of the People’s Strength, including Kim Ki-hyun, head of the Impeachment Transactions Investigation, visited the Supreme Court on this day to meet with Chief Justice Kim. They met Supreme Court Chief Kim and demanded to resign, but it was reported that Chief Justice Kim had no intention of withdrawing.
In the afternoon of that day, Judge Lim’s 17th class members of the Judicial Research and Training Institute also issued a statement and voiced criticism that the impeachment of Chief Justice Kim should precede.
They said, “As the head of the judiciary, the chief justice of the judiciary should defend the independence of the judiciary more than anyone else, but he was so hurried to see the political circles and thrown his judges into a whirlwind of unfair political impeachment. “I even lied to deny the conversation with the judge.”
“When the recording file was released, it was consistent with excuses, such as that the memory was inaccurate because it was an old thing.” “These actions undermined the authority of the court and made many judges feel shame and self-destruction. It should be impeached. The person is not Judge Lim, but the Supreme Court Chief Kim,” he added.
The meeting of lawyers for human rights and reunification on the Korean Peninsula (Hanbyun) also urged Chief Justice Kim to resign at a press conference the day before, saying, “The Chief Justice, who should prevent drafts from political power, prevented the retirement of judges for political reasons and aided in impeachment.”
Meanwhile, the Korean Bar Association is not making any other stance on this controversy. An official from the Korea Bar Association said, “We are considering whether to make a position on this issue.”