|
View larger picture |
|
| ▲ There are not a few reports about the recent impeachment of judges negatively conveying the legal reaction. But the judges on the phone pointed out that “why impeachment is very political”. The photo was taken in September 2017 when former Supreme Court Chief Yang Seung-tae retired. | |
| Ⓒ Lee Hee-hoon |
View related photos |
Four years after the law enforcement incident was revealed, the National Assembly is in earnest pursuing impeachment proceedings for Judge Im Seong-geun, who intervened in the 7-hour trial of the Sewol ferry. Some media reported that there were many negative reactions, such as’too late’ and’high possibility of dismissal’, conveying the atmosphere of the legal profession watching the situation. However, the opinions of the incumbent judges were different.
Judge A on the 31st <오마이뉴스>In a phone call with him, he said, “There is a time for the court and there is a time for the National Assembly,” and he said it was not a question of’why now’. He said, “In 2018, the young judges of Andong Ji-won of the Daegu District Court were conscious of the problem that they could not condone, and at the National Judges’ Delegation, a resolution called’a serious constitutional violation that should be reviewed together with the procedure for impeachment of the judges’ came out.” (Impeachment prosecution) It would be good if it was done, but how would we talk about the bad?”
In addition, he said, “The court made the retirement of the judges involved in the judicial nongdan, and even made the story of impeachment come out because they did not discipline them,” he said. Judge A pointed out that “there is no relation between the politician’s unfair attack on judges and the discussion on impeachment of the judges right now. Rather, it is very political to ask’why impeachment of judges’ at this point.” He added, “The court should not be ashamed of why it hasn’t been impeached yet, and that the court organization law hasn’t changed anything,” he added.
“The impeachment of a judge is one of the steps to determine the responsibility of the judicial Nongdan, not all. If anything goes wrong, the wrongdoer must be held accountable, and then the system should be improved. That’s what the judges in 2017 (of each court) have to say. This is the record I left. But since I did not properly identify responsibilities and improved the system, there was no’what went wrong’ in people’s memories.”
“I didn’t properly identify my responsibilities… I can’t remember it.”
|
View larger picture |
|
| ▲ One voice of “The Impeachment of Justice Nongdan”… Lee Tan-hee, Ryu Ho-jeong, Kang Min-jeong, and Yong Hye-in On the morning of the 22nd, Lee Tan-hee and Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Tan-hee is holding a press conference with Open Democrats Kang Min-jeong, Ryu Ho-jeong Justice Party, and Yong Hye-in Basic Income Party lawmakers at the National Assembly Communication Hall to propose “impeachment of the judges of the Judicial Nongshim.” | |
| Ⓒ Nam So-yeon |
View related photos |
Judge B also said, “It was late, but even now, if it is possible to prosecute impeachment, it is necessary.” He said, “It is not wrong to say that (even if the National Assembly votes, the Constitutional Court) will not be able to conclude within February,” he said. “Even if there is no interest in adjudicating the constitutional petition, the Constitutional Law has never judged whether it is unconstitutional if it meets certain requirements. I said. In addition, he said, “There is no precedent for a judge to be impeached,” he said, “unlike Supreme Court Chief Yoo Tae-heung and Supreme Court Justice Shin Young-cheol, even being subject to constitutional judgment is meaningful.”
The opinion was different from the opinion that’Judge Seong-geun Lim will retire due to the expiration of his term on February 28, so there is no profit.’ Judge B said, “You should not predict whether the Constitutional Constitution will be dismissed or whether it will be judged by entering the main body,” he said. “It is true that there are physical limitations, but the logic of’There is no need to prosecute because the Constitutional Constitution will dismiss’ is also wrong. The authority of other constitutional institutions There is no need to infringe.” He also pointed out that “the discussion of impeachment started from the self-will of the judiciary society,” and “It makes no sense to call it taming the court.
There is also a claim that’Judge Seong-geun Im was found not guilty of the first trial. However, on the 31st, Judge Ryu Young-jae, who has consistently voiced his voice since the beginning of the Judicial Nongdan Incident, <한겨레> In a column published on the Internet, “impeachment has a different character from criminal punishment,” he refuted, saying, “The impeachment can proceed independently of the criminal trial, and impeachment is possible even for unconstitutional acts other than crime.”
Judge Seong-geun Lim was a former Chief Justice of the Seoul Central District Court, former Tatsuya Kato, who was set up in court on charges of defaming President Park Geun-hye’s honor. <산케이신문> The direction of the judgment was presented to Judge Lee Dong-geun, the judge in the case of the Seoul Bureau chief, and even the judgment was corrected. He made an excuse in court as’advice’. However, Judge Ryu Young-jae repeatedly emphasized the need for an impeachment trial, saying that such advice is “intervention in trial” and “severe unconstitutionality must be clearly declared.”
“Im Seong-geun, I broke the judicial system…” A judge’s clutter
However, Judge C could not hide his confused mind. He said, “Regardless of the timing, if (unconstitutional or illegal acts) are caught, you must be judged (judicially),” he said. “Excluding the surrounding political engineering, and looking at the case itself, Judge Im Seong-geun’s actions destroyed the foundation of the judicial system. “He said. However, he added, “This should not be used by the National Assembly with the will and purpose of using it under political calculations.”
Judge C said, “In fact, the current situation is a little different from when the impeachment was first filed.” “The Democratic Party continues to hold this, and then, after seeing the appearance of fiddling with it, he could not say,’Isn’t it piggybacking because of an unfavorable ruling?’ “No.” He said, “I’m so upset. In the past, no one was interested in impeachment of judges,” he said. “The Democratic Party eventually nominated the lawmakers involved in the trial transaction during the last general election. Even now, it seems like they are (promoting the impeachment of the judges of the Judicial Nongdan) for the sake of cover. It’s complicated,” he confessed.
Nevertheless, Judge C emphasized, “Regardless of what the National Assembly does, it is clear what (we) should aim for.” He said, “If you see the people who are responsible for neither disciplinary action nor criminal punishment, but rather moderate (as a person in charge of judicial administration) or speak out louder, the reform inside the court seems to have failed.” Anyone who knows knows that intervening in a trial is a thing to do.”