material photo” alt=”Seong-geun Lim, former chief judge of the Busan High Court. Seong-geun Lim, former chief judge of the Busan High Court. <한겨레> Material photo
As the impeachment trial against former Busan High Court chief judge Im Seong-geun, who was impeached for the first time in the history of the constitution as a judge due to the involvement of the “Jujubongdan,” was delayed, the voices of civil society organizations urging the Constitutional Court to proceed with a fast trial are increasing. The Participation Solidarity said, “The impeachment of Judge Im Seong-geun should be understood as a part of the judicial Nongdan conducted by former Supreme Court Chief Yang Seung-tae, not the individual level of Im Seong-geun.” I submitted an opinion to the court,” he said on the 7th. The Participation Solidarity also criticized the former vice-president Judge Lim’s request to evade Judge Lee Seok-tae, the head judge in the impeachment case. Former Vice-President Judge Lim avoided an unfair trial, citing the fact that Lee served as Chairman of the Special Assistance Committee for the Sewol ferry in the past and his history as Chairman Minbyun (a lawyers’ meeting for the democratic society) that he feared an unfair trial. However, the Solidarity of Participation said, “It is difficult to raise a suspicion on the grounds that you acted as the head of a state agency and served as the group chairman 15 years ago as an objective reason that it is difficult to expect a fair trial.” It is nothing but a subjective suspicion raised with the intent to delay it. He criticized that the suspended argument must be immediately resumed.”
Han Sang-hee, a professor at Konkuk University Law School (Executive Committee member of the Participation Solidarity Judicial Oversight Center), who wrote the representative opinion, revised the effective date of the impeachment decision of “dismissal” to February 28, 2021, the expiration date of the term of office (the former chief judge). I can specify it in the order,” he insisted. The purpose of the impeachment decision is to prevent the public officials for whom the impeachment trial has been requested from escaping constitutional sanctions due to the expiration of their term of office, and to make the decision of impeachment starting from the last time they held the position of judge in order to respect the purpose of the National Assembly’s impeachment prosecution. It proposed a new order decision for the former chief judge Lim who had already removed his legal uniform, not “to expel Judge Seong-geun Lim”, but “destruct Judge Lee Seong-geun on February 28, 2021”. This proposal is a refutation of the claim that it is unfair to receive an impeachment trial without being a judge because the term of office of the former chief judge Lim expired on the 28th of last month. Unlike general disciplinary procedures for public officials, the impeachment trial “warns and prevents high-ranking officials in the judiciary, and protects the constitution by depriving public officials who violate the constitution or laws after death.” That’s his explanation. In fact, the US Congress recently conducted an impeachment trial, even though former President Donald Trump retired due to the expiration of his term. This is because it was judged that it meant that he would hold accountability for his actions during his tenure to preserve and protect the constitutional norms, and to prepare an indicator of which of the president’s duties would become possible impeachment actions in the future. Professor Han Sang-hee said, “Even if our Supreme Court (public officials) lose their legal status due to the expiration of their term of office, they have acknowledged that his status may continue if it is recognized that there is special necessity depending on circumstances. He stressed that it is indispensable to make a decision on impeachment because the judgment case was made in response to a constitutional request to correct the unconstitutional performance of the former judge’s duties.” Professor Han also stressed that the court intervention, such as the case of defamation of the 7 Hours of the Sewol ferry by Lim’s former vice-president, should not be considered except for Judicial Nongdan. When former Seoul Bureau chief Tatsuya Kato was tried on charges of defamation related to the 7 hours of the Sewol ferry by former President Park Geun-hye, the former Chief Judge Lim was the Chief Criminal Chief Judge of the Seoul Central District Court, under the direction of the Deputy Chief of the Court Administration at the time of Im Jong-Heon, and drafted the decision. Or requested amendment of the oral version of the judgment. Professor Han also recalled the occurrence of such a trial intervention in the process of communicating with former deputy chief Lim Woo Byeong-woo and former civil affairs secretary Kwak Byeong-hoon. He said, “The results of the trial in the case (corresponding) were of interest to the Blue House. Considering this, he pointed out that the act of former vice-president Lim was carried out under the involvement of the Blue House and the intermediary of the court administration.” He pointed out that a serious constitutional infringement occurred in the aspect that his involvement in the trial was related to the Civil Affairs Office of the Blue House, and that it was one of the pillars of the Judicial Nongdan incident. Previously, Deputy Chief Judge Lim argued that in a criminal trial in this regard,’the judiciary who received the request to receive the judgment was to make an independent judgment in sympathy with that purpose’. However, Professor Han refuted, “The current practice of our courts is that the status of being a chief judge with judicial administration authority, such as the power of judicial administration for judges, has the power to substantially change the will and will of general judges working in the court.” . “The fact that the former chief judge was acquitted in the first trial, but had enough power to use his position to make other judges do things that are not obligated, is evident in the (criminal case) judgment,” he said. It is an infringement. By Jang Ye-ji, staff reporter [email protected]