“It should have been repaired to protect members of poor health”
“Receiving a resignation is provided with abandonment of duty and indulgence”
“The difference in perspective on the judicial nongdan”
On the afternoon of the afternoon of the 4th, when the impeachment prosecution against the Busan High Court chief judge Im Seong-geun, who was involved in the’Jubeongdan’, passed the plenary session of the National Assembly, Supreme Court Chief Kim Myung-soo is speaking while leaving the office at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. yunhap news
Supreme Court Chief Kim Myung-soo’s excommunication of’false explanation’ stems from his refusal to accept the resignation of the Busan High Court chief judge Im Seong-geun. Judge Lim expressed his appreciation and suggested the reason for’health deterioration’. Therefore, there is considerable criticism within the court that “the head of the judiciary has abandoned the responsibility to protect the members”. “If the condemnation argument against the judge who acted in’trial intervention’ by accepting the resignation was blocked at the source, it is a bigger problem.” . There is also an analysis that there is a difference between the perspectives of judges who eventually look at the situation of’Judgongdan’ behind this controversy.
On May 22, last year, when Supreme Court Chief Kim held an interview with Judge Lim, the word’impeachment’ came to be mentioned because of’whether the resignation was accepted.’ Chief Justice Kim said, “If you just accept (resignation) today, (the National Assembly) can’t talk about impeachment.” After the transcript was released, Chief Justice Kim’s apology was also “a statement made under the judgment that midterm resignation, not at the time of regular greetings, was in principle inappropriate.” At the time, the main theme of the dialogue was that it was the resignation of Judge Lim.
First of all, there is no disagreement that it was extremely inappropriate for Supreme Court Chief Kim to reject his resignation after hearing the’impeachment movement of the political power’ at the time. The main thing to note is that the court’s opinion is continuing over whether it was appropriate to accept the resignation of Judge Lim.
For those who believe that’the resignation should have been repaired’, the problem is that Supreme Court Chief Kim was more concerned about the outsider than protecting the members of the organization. At that time, the disciplinary procedure for Judge Lim was over. Judge Yoon Jong-gu, head judge of the Seoul High Court, argued that “entering and leaving the office of a judge is the freedom of choice guaranteed by the Constitution,” through the court’s internal network (Courtnet). In fact, it means that Chief Justice Kim violated basic rights under the constitution.
At that time, in 2014, the Chief Criminal Chief Justice Seong-geun Lim had a meeting with the Seoul detention center guards. Newsis
In addition, it is pointed out that it is only an excuse that Chief Justice Kim made the excuse to submit his resignation. The Supreme Court is usually resigned at the beginning of the year before the’regular greetings in February’, but Judge Lim claims that he was rejected again despite resigning his intention on December 14 last year. A vice-president judge of the Seoul Central District Court criticized, “If you understand that in May of last year, according to the explanation of the Supreme Court, why did you not receive (resignation) at the end of the year?” It is said that there has been no precedent of resignation for’health reasons’ like Judge Lim. In fact, the Court Organization Act also has a provision for retirement due to mental and physical disability.
However, if Supreme Court Chief Kim easily accepted the resignation of Judge Lim, who was involved in the Judicial Nongdan case, there is a considerable opinion that this is truly’reservation of duty’. A judge in the metropolitan area said, “The court’s compassionateness toward those involved in the judicial nongdan is a bigger problem.” He said, “If the vice-president judge had resigned, the court would have been criticized for’indulgence’ inside the court.”
In particular, there are still many voices regarding Judge Lim, saying,’Before taking off the suit, we must take responsibility for the intervening act.’ A reputation in the district court said, “Isn’t it the lesson of the’motherland situation’ that if a public official has a problem, it should be held sternly, regardless of criminal punishment?” The logic is not appropriate.” Deputy Judge Jung Wook-do of Daegu District Court also argued on the 4th that “blocking the possibility of impeachment by accepting resignation while the impeachment is being debated is rather infringing on duty or political neutrality.” Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the’Regular Regulations on Restriction of Dismissal by Judges’ does not allow judges to accept the resignation of a judge’received for disciplinary action or under investigation by an investigative agency.
Choi Na-sil reporter [email protected]
Subscribe to the Hankook Ilbo News Naver Channel
Balance to see the world, the Hankook Ilbo Copyright © Hankookilbo