| ▲ Lee Tan-hee “Im Seong-geun infringement of trial independence, impeachment prosecution should end the vicious circle” On the afternoon of the 4th, a plenary session was held at the National Assembly. The video above contains the entire remarks of Lee Tan-hee and Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Tan-hee on the vote on the impeachment prosecution against Judge Im Seong-geun, head of the Busan High Court. (Video: Reporter Sungmin Hong) | |
| Ⓒ Kim Yoon-sang |
View related video |
‘The Lie of Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo’ seemed to have stopped the impeachment prosecution for the first judge in Korea. However, ex-judge Lee Tan-hee, a Democratic Party member who sparked the fire of impeachment, appealed by asking, “Is the judge a god,” right before the vote, and the’impeachment solidarity’ of the Democratic Party, the Justice Party, the Open Democratic Party, and the Basic Income Party did not shake.
It was not easy for the impeachment proceedings of the deputy judge Im Seong-geun of the Busan High Court to be passed by the National Assembly on the 4th. In addition to opposition from conservative opposition such as the power of the people, it was necessary to persuade the party. Finally, a’participation’ between Nak-yeon Lee and Tae-nyeon Kim, the representative of the hospital, reached 161, which exceeded the quorum of approval.
But it wasn’t the end here. With the vote in front, Judge Seong-geun Lim released a transcript of the conversation with Supreme Court Chief Kim Myung-soo (related article: Revealing the transcripts of Im Seong-geun and Kim Myung-soo ahead of impeachment… Why was it that time?).
The transcript release wavelength, nevertheless…
Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo, who clarified to the effect that Judge Seong-geun Lim never submitted a resignation, was controversial over lies. The people’s strength was that Supreme Court Chief Kim Myung-soo had to renounce the independence of the judiciary and argued that the impeachment was necessary.
Despite these movements, the Democratic Party showed its will. On the morning of the voting day, Democratic Party leader Kim Tae-yeon said, “I will fulfill the responsibilities given to the National Assembly by the Constitution” (related article: Kim Tae-yeon, “Today, I will fulfill the responsibilities of the National Assembly” before the first judge’s impeachment). Although the Democratic Party’s official position was’allow the proposal for impeachment by its members,’ President Kim’s remarks on that day made the approval of the impeachment prosecution a’de facto party argument’.
There was also a prospect that there would be a dropout due to a sudden issue as it was an anonymous vote, but Congressman Lee Tan-hee tried to persuade until the end.
Members of the Power of the People expressed their willingness in protest, such as “impeach Kim Myung-soo or impeachment” during the remarks of Congressman Lee Tan-hee. However, Congressman Lee steadily read the explanation of the proposal for the impeachment prosecution he had prepared. He said, “For political purposes, such as’Park Geun-hye’s psychological guard’, it is more unacceptable to intervene in a trial received by others. The accused (Sung-geun Lim) clearly undermined the independence of the trial.” You must have a constitutional trial. Even a judge is no exception.”
In addition, he stressed that the rejection of the impeachment prosecution against former Supreme Justice Shin Young-cheol’s trial intervention in 2009 led to Judicial Nongshim, saying, “The abandonment of the duties of our National Assembly helped Judicial Nongshim.” He said, “Let’s properly fulfill the constitutional obligations of the National Assembly, which have been postponed for political reasons at all times, this time,” he said. “To see the dignified members of the National Assembly silently fulfilling their responsibilities for today, this with overwhelming approval beyond political parties. I earnestly appeal to you that the agenda will be approved,” he raised his voice.
The result was 288 votes in the vote, with 179 votes in favor, 102 votes against, 3 abstentions, and 4 invalids. Judge Im Seong-geun’s transcript was uncovered, and 179 people, 18 more than the 161 lawmakers who initiated the impeachment prosecution, drew approval. The number of opposition members of 102 is less than the total number of members of the People’s Party (105).
It was the first moment when the constitution-guaranteed judiciary checks were put into operation. The following is the full text of Rep. Lee Tan-hee’s remarks on this day.
|
View larger picture |
|
| ▲ In addition, Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Tan-hee is explaining a proposal for impeachment prosecution (Lim Seong-geun), a judge (Lim Seong-geun) involved in “Judongdan” at the main assembly hall of the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul on the afternoon of the 4th. | |
| Ⓒ Nam So-yeon |
View related photos |
My fellow citizens! Parliament Chairman Park Byung-seok and seniors and fellow lawmakers! This is Lee Tan-hee. From now on, I will explain the proposal for the impeachment prosecution proposed by 161 members including Lee Tan-hee, Ryu Ho-jeong, Kang Min-jeong, and Yong Hye-in.
First, the acts of the accused in violation of the constitution and the law are as follows.
First, the accused uses the position of the Chief Criminal Chief Judge with judicial administration authority, and uses the position of Tatsuya Kato. <산케이신문> I was illegally involved in the case of the former Seoul branch director, aka the 7 Hours of the Sewol ferry. Before the judgment was sentenced, the accused asked the judge in charge to leak an oral copy of the judgment and received it by e-mail, and the contents of the judgment were’only for slander, but defamation against former President Park Geun-hye is recognized.’ The sentence was changed to the effect of asking for a sentence. Furthermore, the accused unreasonably demanded the judge in charge of “declaring the falsehood of the article’Seven Hours’ in the court” during the trial, and notified the details of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ election on the date of election, and unjustly instructed the defendant to be judged. Intervened in the process.
Second, in a criminal case against lawyers related to the Ssangyong Motor rally, the accused must revise the politically sensitive part of the original ruling’posthumously’ even though the sentence by the original verdict has already been ended, and the famous baseball player Won Jeong-bak In the case, even though the final report was already made as’referral to the trial proceedings’, it was illegally involved in each of the above trials by inducing the referral to the trial proceedings and inducing a fine to be issued.
This is a fact that has already been acknowledged through the first trial court ruling on the accused on February 14, 2020, and most of the accused are not fighting. It is stated six times as’constitutional violations that violated the independence of judges’ in the ruling. It is a de facto request that a constitutional trial is necessary as it cannot be resolved by a criminal trial. The actions of the accused were declared by the National Judges’ Delegation on November 19, 2018 as’a serious violation of the constitution and subject to impeachment of the National Assembly’ pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Supreme Court Regulations. It is also an act of trial intervention.
The accused has violated a number of constitutions and laws, including the constitutional principle of due process, the principle of independence of the trial, and the Criminal Law that the sentence cannot be amended after the judgment is declared.
Fellow Koreans, seniors and fellow lawmakers, there is actually only one mission given to the court by the Korean Constitution. It is to have an independent and fair trial. What our Constitution proclaims is not’independence of judicial departments’, but’independence of judicial powers’. It is’independence of jurisdiction’, that is,’independence of trial’. ‘Independence of trial’ is for the people who are being judged. This is because every Korean citizen has the constitutional right to an’independent and fair trial’.
If you are a Korean citizen, you have the right to receive an independent and impartial judgment, the judgment that the same judge, who made eye contact with me in an open court, heard my appeal, and read the evidence I submitted. There is. Only such judgments are legitimate judgments recognized by the Constitution. The accused was not the judge in charge of the trial. It is a third party without any jurisdiction. I intervened in the trial without having to enter the court once and without making eye contact with the accused. It is an act to buy the resentment of the people being tried. Neither the defendant nor the prosecutor, nor the lawyer, nor the citizens of the Republic of Korea knew this. This is because the accused did it secretly. Because it is an unacceptable act, it was done secretly.
Moreover, for political purposes, such as’Park Geun-hye’s Sim Ki Guard’, it is even more unacceptable to intervene in other trials. The accused apparently undermined the independence of the trial. Condemning such damaging acts is to protect the independence of the trial and to protect the right of our people to receive an independent trial. Public officials who violate the Constitution are subject to constitutional trial. Even being a judge is no exception.
This is because in a rule of law society, everyone must be equal before the law. Who, then, can bring a judge who violates the Constitution to court. Our Constitution of the Republic of Korea has given its authority and obligation to the National Assembly, the representative body of the people. This is the’impeachment prosecution process’ we are conducting today. The essence of the impeachment prosecution lies in not only condemning the accused, but also condemning the violation of the constitution and the act itself. Actions that are not condemned must be repeated.
Our National Assembly has a painful history of failing to approve the proposed impeachment proceedings on November 6, 2009, due to former Justice Shin Young-cheol’s intervention in the trial. Then, just two years later, former Supreme Court Chief Yang Seung-tae was inaugurated, and the judicial farm was started. This is the reason that our National Assembly’s job abandonment contributed to the judicial farming group.
Honorable seniors and fellow lawmakers,’Is the judge a god?’ This question is a phrase written in hand letters sent to members of the National Assembly after the families of the Sewol, who are the actual victims of the 7-hour trial of the Sewol ferry, heard the news of the accused’s sudden retirement. The judge spoke about our painful experience of not being punished for violating the Constitution, the general benefits of unimaginable high fees for the common people, and returning to public office once it is forgotten. Now we have to break that wrong vicious cycle.
This time, let’s properly fulfill the constitutional obligations of the National Assembly, which were postponed for political reasons at every turn. Pleadings and trials are the responsibility of the Constitutional Court, and the National Assembly fulfills its duty of referral. The real benefit of the impeachment prosecution is that the people and the National Assembly together confirm that the’constitutional order’ of the Republic of Korea is functioning properly as it was originally designed, even in the midst of the seemingly noisy political struggle.
There can be no distinction between political parties and factions in fulfilling the duties of the’National Assembly’. I think here is the true intention of several party lawmakers to participate in this initiative. If so, for today’s day, I earnestly appeal that you will approve this agenda with overwhelming approval beyond the political party so that you can see a dignified National Assembly member silently fulfilling his responsibilities.