It was the opposition that was angry with the judiciary. In the main assembly of the National Assembly, the representative of the House nominated the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and criticized it as’innocent on my side and guilty on your side’.
Petition for “impeachment of the arrested judge of the political court”
Legal world “passport, denial of separation of powers”
Passport “Adhesion between the prosecution and the judiciary, ruling politics”
Personal attacks such as’judge trash’
Opposition Party “If you don’t like it, everyone is ruined”
“The Fatherland, Jesus Climbing the Hill of Golgotha”
“Canonical Heart, Cross instead of Parents on Earth”
Passport, Cho’s advocacy words are reduced
But now Geoyeo (巨與) is angry. Last month, if Gyeongsangnam Governor Kim Gyeong-soo’s second trial was infested, it exploded in the first trial (4 years imprisonment) ruling against former Dongyang University professor Jeong Gyeong-shim. The legal community was concerned that it was “a direct denial of the principle of separation of powers under the constitution.”
“In a controversial situation, he was convicted of being convicted of’circumstance of suspicion’.” (Kim Jong-min, together with Democratic Party Supreme Council Member)
“I think it may be a very bad precedent in which the prejudices, predictions, and prejudices of the court have worked quite a bit.” (Ik-pyo Hong, Director of Democratic Research Institute)
This is a statement from the Democratic Party leadership on the 24th. Chief Commissioner Kim insisted on the results of the trial on the previous day, in particular, “the entire judicial control task of the prosecutors was not properly fulfilled”.
Personnel from the Blue House also added. Deputy Secretary-General Cho Han-gi, who was President Moon’s Ji Geun-geori (protocol secretary, 1st Affiliated Officer), said, “We have no choice but to get angry at the sticky ties between the prosecution and the judiciary.”
The legal world “Attack on the judiciary of the fortress of the rule of law, fear beyond sadness”
The words of the passport for the first court trial. Graphic = Reporter Cha Junhong [email protected]
Rep. Young-chan Yoon, who served as the first chief of national communication at the Blue House, also said, “If it were not the wife of former Minister Cho Kook, the court would have made such a harsh ruling.” Did you erase the cross? It’s cruel.”
Rep. Lee Soo-jin, a former judge, said, “Even if’forgery of citations’ is convicted, a year in prison is sufficient. Crisis is coming again to the judiciary.” Unfortunately, Congressman Lee Tan-hee, a former judge, announced the day before that he would pursue impeachment of Lim Seong-geun, head judge of Busan High Court and Lee Dong-geun, head of Seoul High Court.
The two judges have been suspicious of intervening in a trial on charges of defamation of a Japanese reporter who raised the issue of the 7 Hours of the Sewol ferry by former President Park Geun-hye.
Lee Soo-jin “A one-year sentence is enough even if you are guilty of a citation”
Rep. Kim Yong-min, a former lawyer, said, “There is a description of the three judges in the (Jung Gyeong-shim) judicial part, which corresponds to (the prosecution’s)’judge’s inspection document’.” Congressman Kim Jin-ae of the Open Democratic Party also said, “There were many concerns about Judge Lim Jeong-yeop’s bias. In addition to reforming the prosecution, media and judicial reform are urgent.”
The Democratic Party’s official position the day before was “I am embarrassed because the judgment by the court is too harsh. I hope that the truth will be revealed properly in the remaining trial process” (Spokesman Shin Young-dae). Although the length was short, he expressed his dislike for the court in emotional language such as’harshness’ and’embarrassment’. In the beginning, it is said that the leadership had a heated debate over the level of comment. An official from the Democratic Party said, “There was an opinion that’let’s show respect for the first time because it is the judgment of the court’, but the hardline theory that’the judgment of the court is nonsense’ prevailed.
The attack of the’promoters’ also became harsh. Broadcaster Kim Eo-jun argued that “the judiciary wore legal uniforms and made politics by judgment,” while food critic Hwang Gyo-ik likened Cho to a Jesus climbing the Golgotha hill with a cross. On the bulletin board of the Blue House, a national petition was posted stating that “I request the impeachment of the courts of the first trial of Jung Gyeong-sim (Jung-yeop Lim, Seong-su Kwon, Sun-hee Kim). “As a result of the judgment, a person’s life was completely denied. He said it severely violated Article 103 of the Constitution, where judges must judge according to their conscience.” As of 10 pm that day, 200,000 people agreed. On-line communities, etc., were followed by derogatory articles referring to Judge Lim’s probation or innocence. Comments such as’Plate (Judge + Garbage)’ and’The subject of investigation by the Airborne Division’ were also posted.
As the accusation of the passport increases, the voice of criticism is growing. In their favor, they say, “I pay homage” (former Democratic Party representative Lee Hae-chan), but they are at a disadvantage, so they are attacking. In addition, the current passport is so powerful that it is possible to impeach a judge at any time (one-third of the enrolled members voted by a majority of the enrolled members) at any time. In addition, the vast majority of the targets of high-ranking officials criminal investigation departments (airport departments) are also judges. It is feared that democracy itself based on the value of’independence of the judiciary’ may be shaken if the passport loses control.
Geoyeo, if you decide, you can impeach the judge.
An incumbent judge said, “As a judge, you have to accept a legitimate criticism of the judgment, but attacking the judge personally and threatening the position of a judge are becoming more common,” said one incumbent judge. “Do you really want the judge to make a fair judgment based on the law and conscience? I don’t know if I just want to give a ruling in favor of the regime.” An attorney from a judge criticized that “if a politician he supports is prosecuted, the prosecution is blamed, and if convicted, the court is blamed.” A deputy prosecutor in the metropolitan area said, “A terrible cognitive dissonance.”
One prosecutor said, “I don’t know if the political power that only believes in certain supporters and is agitating the country is the leader of the country and the ruling powers,” he said. “When attacking the judiciary, the bastion of the rule of law, I feel scared beyond sadness.” He added, “There was a phrase in the judgment saying,’The pain of those who told the truth,’ but I’m literally suffering because the judge told the truth.”
Experts are no different. Kim Han-gyu, former chairman of the Seoul Bar Association, said, “The representative of the people, a legislative body, is talking about impeachment of judges and judicial reform because they do not like the decision. This is a dangerous idea contrary to the principle of separation of powers under the constitution. I will make it to you.”
Chae Jin-won, a professor at Kyunghee University’s Public Governance Research Institute, pointed out, “Even though the constitution clearly stipulates a separation of powers, the ruling party disregards the judgment of the judiciary because it does not match their opinions, it is contrary to the rule of law and the public sentiment.
Opposition also joined the ranks of criticism. Ho-young Joo said, “Does Democratic Party members recognize our constitutional order? If they don’t agree with them, they all deny and deny their existence and the constitutional order of the Republic of Korea.” Regarding Dudun of Rep. Yoon Young-chan, deputy spokesman Park Ki-nyeong pointed out that “the dead end of treating many parents in this land who want to build up their children’s specs through fair competition and effort, as criminals like Professor Kyung-Shim Chung.”
Reporters Oh Hyun-seok, Park Sara, and Kim Soo-min [email protected]