The parallel theory between Im Seong-geun Impeachment and Trump impeachment. Hankyoreh TV
Lim Seong-geun, the head of the Busan High Court, was impeached at the National Assembly on the 4th for unfairly intervening in the court of the Seoul District Commissioner, who raised the suspicion of’Seven Hours of the Sewol ferry’ while serving as the chief criminal justice of the Seoul Central District Court. The impeachment prosecution against a judge is the first in the history of the constitution, and the reason for impeachment is also important, so attention is being drawn. In other words, since the term of office of Deputy Chief Judge Seong-geun Lim ends on February 28, he will lose his official status, but it is still possible to decide on impeachment. Originally, the first impeachment trial by the Constitutional Court against Judge Lim was scheduled to take place on the 26th, but it was postponed because Judge Lim filed a request to evade the judge. In the end, the trial begins only after the end of his term of office, and I doubt that he was aiming at this point as well. In the end, the impeachment is aimed at expelling the officials from their positions, but since they have already quit, the question arises whether there is any real interest in the trial. Unfortunately, US President Trump, who recently retired, gave an example. Trump’s impeachment bill was passed on January 13 in the House of Representatives on charges of inciting civil war in the House of Representatives, and a week later, President Trump ended his term of office. In the United States, the Senate Assembly is in charge of the impeachment trial of our Constitutional Court, which began after President Trump retired. Therefore, the order of’impeachment prosecution → term termination → impeachment trial’ is the same as that of Deputy Judge Im Seong-geun this time. So in the United States, whether a president who has already retired could be the subject of impeachment became a major issue, but the Senate decided that it was possible. However, in the innocence vote, he was found not guilty because he could not fill the quorum.
The order of’impeachment prosecution → termination of term → impeachment trial’ is the same as that of Deputy Judge Im Seong-geun this time. Hankyoreh TV
In this process, legal debate arose even among law scholars. This is because the U.S. Constitution, which regulates the impeachment system, does not have a clear stipulation on whether retired public officials can also be subject to impeachment. One side argues that impeachment has no meaning after retirement as the main purpose of impeachment is the deprivation of public office. However, the U.S. Constitution stipulates that, as an effect of impeachment, not only the deprivation of office, but also the inauguration of other offices afterward. Based on this, it is argued that public officials who commit impeachment actions should not be allowed to take on other public offices to protect the legal order and society. This is another key reason for creating the impeachment system. One jurist makes this analogy. If a shepherd who was caring for the sheep steals a sheep, if convicted in a trial, he is not only fired from the owner of the sheep, but also disqualifies him from taking care of other sheep.There is a law at all because the shepherd who stole the sheep was fired immediately before being tried. It is against the purpose of the law if you do not receive them, and if you give them the opportunity to take care of other flocks. The United States also has a historical precedent. In 1876, when suspicions were raised that the Secretary of the Army, William Belknap, had received a bribe, the House of Representatives established an investigation committee. The committee obtained the evidence and reported it to Congress. But only a few hours ago, after Velknap resigned. After debating whether impeachment is possible, the House of Representatives unanimously voted on the impeachment proceedings, and the Senate also proceeded with an impeachment trial.
William Belknap, former US Secretary of the Army. Hankyoreh TV
In the case of Belknap, he resigned before the impeachment proceedings took place, so he was a civilian from the beginning of the impeachment proceedings. This is what makes Trump different from President Trump. Some argue that Trump could be subject to impeachment because he was in office at least at the time the impeachment proceedings were made.
Report of the U.S. Congressional Bureau of Investigation. Hankyoreh TV
Article 51 of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Hankyoreh TV
Article 134 (2) of the National Assembly Act. Hankyoreh TV
The U.S. Congressional Investigation Bureau investigated these various laws and precedents and issued a report that even retired public officials could be subject to impeachment. The meaning of impeachment is not only to deprive an individual of public office, but also a jurist’s point of declaring the constitutional values of what public officials should not do. “The message to be declared is more important than the fate of an impeached individual.” The story of the US case has been lengthened. In the case of Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court has a prestigious rule to solve this problem simply. In the Regulation on Impeachment of the President (Article 51), it stipulated that “the initiation and progress of the impeachment proceedings are not affected by the resignation or expiration of the term of office”. In Korea, there is no prestigious provision for impeachment of retired public officials like the United States, but the National Assembly Act (Article 134 (2)) prohibits public officials who have been prosecuted from resigning or dismissal while the impeachment trial is in progress. By quitting public office in advance, the trick to avoid the decision to impeach was blocked. Even in the light of these regulations, it would be said that public officials whose term of office was terminated after being prosecuted for impeachment are also subject to impeachment.
A public official who has been dismissed cannot take office in another office for five years (Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Act). Hankyoreh TV
When the Constitutional Court decides to impeach, the official is’dismissed’. Dismissed public officials cannot take office for five years. (Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Act) If a judge is dismissed, the practice of a lawyer is also restricted for five years. (Article 5, No. 4 of the Lawyers Act) mentioned in the case of the United States. Likewise, the purpose of the impeachment system is to not leave the flock to the’bad shepherd’ by not only depriving public office but also restricting the inauguration of additional public office. If we allow these additional sanctions to be circumvented just because their term of office has ended, they will be helpless if a public official engages in anti-constitutional conduct at the end of his term. I hope that the Constitutional Court will make a reasonable judgment on this issue that fits the nature of the impeachment system. If Deputy Judge Lim Seong-geun says he is subject to impeachment even after the end of his term, the next question is whether his conduct is the reason for impeachment. Since there is no precedent of impeachment of judges in Korea, let’s take a quick look at the reasons for impeachment of judges in foreign countries. In Japan, a total of 7 judges have been impeached so far. The reasons for impeachment include the issuance of warrants and deviances other than the trial, such as illegal shooting on a train, stalking court staff, and receiving golf clubs and suits as bribes. It also includes matters related to the trial, such as related irregularities and requests for preemption in mediation procedures. In the United States, eight judges have been impeached at the federal level. These were reasons such as improper gift receipt, corruption, tax evasion, misrepresentation of property, perjury, and drinking trial.
Judge Seong-geun Lim’s judgment on abuse of authority. Hankyoreh TV
Deputy Chief Judge Im Seong-geun was prosecuted for impeachment by intervening in a defamation trial related to the 7 Hours of the Sewol ferry, instructing the judge to change the contents of the judgment, instructing the judge to reprimand the accused in court, and sentenced in a criminal case by private lawyers related to the Ssangyong Motor assembly It is an act to revise the politically sensitive part of the ruling that has been ended, and to induce a fine sentence in the case of a famous baseball player Won Jeong-bak. This act of intervening in court is a grave corruption in violation of Article 103 of the Constitution, which regulates the independence of the court. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Rolf Larsen’s charges of impeachment in the United States in 1994 included improper conversations with the judge in charge of the trial. Nevertheless, Deputy Judge Lim Seong-geun was only subjected to minor disciplinary action, reprimanded for some charges, and was found not guilty in criminal trial. Although it is an unconstitutional act, it cannot be punished under the current law. Now, the only means of condemnation is impeachment.
Park Yong-hyun, editorial writer for the Hankyoreh. Hankyoreh TV
Not long ago, at a discussion held by the Participation Solidarity, Han Sang-hee, a professor at Konkuk University Law School, made this point. “All state agencies, including the court convicted of innocence, the National Assembly impeached shortly before the expiration of their term of office after a long delay, and the Constitutional Court, which showed a somewhat unsatisfactory sense of speed, have only taken minimal actions for immunity even though significant unconstitutional acts have occurred. It is in the form of avoiding.” “A judge who is not responsible for any state agency and eventually commits an illegal act should ask who should be responsible for the situation that opened the way to act as a full-time attorney, and the situation where the constitution was effectively stopped.” The only subject that can answer this is the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Impeachment Trial for Deputy Chief Judge Im Seong-geun is the Maginot Line, which keeps the constitutional values of judicial independence and fair trial. This is why we must keep our eyes wide open to see what the Constitutional Constitution will conclude.