단상斷想

When I was young, we took to the streets for the end of military dictatorship and democratization, and we remember the victory of democracy that we finally achieved. But the reality we face today is far from the dream of that time. Now, I would like to discuss fundamental reforms for the completion of a true Republic of Korea.

Our Republic of Korea's judiciary and prosecution started without completing the historical task of liquidating pro-Japanese forces immediately after liberation. Thinking about the pain my father's generation went through, this issue is not just a past event, but an ongoing pain. During the US military government and the Syngman Rhee regime, many pro-Japanese figures took positions in the judiciary and prosecution, which became the original sin that shook the foundation of our judicial system. The 'Anti-National Activities Punishment Law' existed only in form, and true historical justice was not achieved. I believe that this tragic distortion of our history is the root cause of undermining the independence and democracy of the Korean judiciary. Through the period of military dictatorship, the judiciary and prosecution were reduced to tools of power, and even after democratization, these structural problems were not completely cured. The remnants of pro-Japanese sentiment and authoritarian legacy cast a shadow over the future Republic of Korea in which my children will live. If we truly love the country and the nation, we feel the urgency to face and correct these historical mistakes.

The crisis facing the Korean judiciary is not simply a matter of one ruling, but can be seen as a sign of a structural collapse that shakes the very foundation of the rule of law. The Supreme Court's decision to overturn and remand the Lee Jae-myung candidate's Public Official Election Act case raises serious questions in both its process and outcome, and clearly demonstrates the risk of the judiciary being reduced to a tool of political power. When I participated in the democratization movement in my youth, we dreamed of a just judiciary. But today, our judiciary and prosecution have seriously lost public trust. The judiciary claims political neutrality, but in reality, it is aware of the power, and the prosecution has become a political tool rather than a guardian of justice.

In handling this case, the Supreme Court not only continuously violated its own internal regulations but also omitted the sufficient review and deliberation process, which is the basic premise of judicial judgment. It is physically impossible to review a vast record of 60,000 to 70,000 pages in just two days. Are these judges superhumans who can read more than one page per second? At this speed, they cannot even properly grasp the title of the document. More serious is the circumstance that the hearing proceeded without the usual research report from the judicial research officer. In the Supreme Court's deliberation of important cases, the research report is an essential basic material, and the omission of this reinforces the suspicion that the conclusion was already predetermined. The fact that Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae decided to refer the case to the full bench on the day of the division assignment, and that the full bench hearing dates were held consecutively, ignoring the internal regulations, strongly suggests that external factors were at play to reach a conclusion by a specific point in time. I have taught my children that everyone is equal before the law, but the reality of the judiciary makes that teaching pale. This is not just an individual's problem but a crisis that threatens the foundation of Korean democracy.

The most shocking aspect of this ruling is that the justices' opinions were perfectly divided according to the presidents who appointed them. All 10 justices who issued the guilty verdict were appointed by former President Yoon Seok-yeol, while the 2 who issued the not guilty verdict were appointed by former President Moon Jae-in. This clear division is hard to see as a coincidence. The Supreme Court should be a place where the best legal experts judge only according to legal principles. However, this case exposed the justices judging according to the interests of the political forces that appointed them. This is a dangerous signal that the judiciary is not an 'independent constitutional institution' but an 'extension of political power,' and shows that the expression 'judicial coup' may not be an exaggeration.

It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the Supreme Court prioritized the political schedule over legal judgment by concluding a case that took 26 months in the first trial and 4 months in the second trial in just 9 days. In particular, the decision to overturn and remand the case without fully reviewing the legal arguments and evidence evaluation contained in the second instance court's acquittal verdict has led to criticism that the judiciary directly intervened in the election process. The unusually rapid trial reinforces the suspicion that the conclusion was already predetermined and was merely a formality to justify that conclusion. This can be seen as an act of the judiciary abandoning its essential role as an 'impartial arbiter'. At a time when a constitutional interpretation of the President's right to non-prosecution is needed, the Supreme Court's hasty decision to prioritize political judgment and issue a guilty verdict can be seen as an overreach that infringes on the Constitutional Court's inherent authority. Furthermore, it is argued that the judiciary has undermined the fundamental principles of democracy by substantially intervening in the election process, which is an exercise of the people's sovereignty. The principle of separation of powers stipulated in the Constitution is a safeguard to prevent one power from dominating or infringing on another. However, this case is suspected of attempting to directly influence the composition of the legislative and executive branches by overstepping that boundary.

What is even more concerning is the reality of 'unequal application of the law based on political inclination' revealed through this incident. The 'double standard' phenomenon, where completely different legal standards are applied to the same or similar illegal acts depending on political inclination, shakes the very foundation of judicial justice. If rulings favorable to a particular political faction are processed quickly, while cases involving other factions are delayed or different standards are applied, people will no longer be able to trust the constitutional value of equality before the law. This can instill a fatal perception that the judiciary has degenerated from a 'guardian of justice' to a 'tool of power'.

This Supreme Court decision may have brought a ruling favorable to a specific political force in the short term, but in the long term, it is highly likely to be a self-inflicted wound that seriously undermines the authority and credibility of the judiciary as a whole. Public trust in the judiciary can collapse in an instant, but its recovery requires a long time and consistent effort. To restore judicial trust, institutional reforms are urgently needed, such as strengthening the political neutrality of the Supreme Court Justice appointment process, strictly adhering to the internal regulations for the operation of the full bench, and establishing an independent reporting system for research judges. In addition, voices of self-reflection on political bias should be further strengthened within the judiciary.

The judiciary loses its reason for existence the moment it obeys the 'will of power' rather than the 'spirit of the law.' True rule of law can only be realized when all citizens are judged by the same legal standards, regardless of their political inclinations. Currently, the Korean judiciary stands at a point of fundamental reflection and reform to restore this basic principle. The true judicial reform I envision goes beyond simple institutional improvements; it is about establishing historical justice and realizing the values of democracy. Over the past few decades, we have achieved certain successes, such as improving the trial system and expanding public participation, but public trust in the judiciary has not yet been restored. Above all, the complete liquidation of pro-Japanese remnants must take precedence. Although 75 years have passed since liberation, it is heartbreaking that the descendants of pro-Japanese forces still exert influence in various fields of our society. Clearly identifying the actions of those who collaborated with the Japanese Empire and recovering illegal property and privileges is a historical duty that our generation must pass on to the next.

True reform cannot be achieved solely through institutional reforms from above. For fundamental change in our Republic of Korea, active participation and oversight from citizens are essential. As a citizen myself, I deeply feel the need to raise my voice and take action for the future of the nation and its people. Only when transparency and accountability are strengthened in all areas - judiciary, prosecution, media, and politics - can we finally complete a just and democratic Republic of Korea. When citizens take the lead in demanding and implementing reforms, our society can embark on the path of true change. I want to pass on a proud Republic of Korea to my children and descendants. A country where judicial justice is upheld, the prosecution is trusted by the people, the media pursues the truth, and political power serves the people - that is the vision of the Republic of Korea that I dream of.