단상斷想

The ruling on the 'court riot' case at the Seoul Western District Court and the contradictions in the Korean judicial system revealed through the search and seizure of Rev. Jeon Kwang-hoon on August 5 show that, on the one hand, the judiciary is acting as a shield, packaging excessive tolerance for pseudo-religions, and on the other hand, the belated investigation is erasing traces of crimes by judicial authorities. It is clear that the rule of law in the Republic of Korea, heading towards national ruin in many ways, is shaking the foundation of the country.

The judge who said, "You won't do that again, right? I believe you," in a courtroom where the dignity of the law has collapsed sounds like a man who seduces a minor and engages in prostitution. This statement from the Seoul Western District Court is a symbolic representation of the current state of the judiciary. The history of immorality among judges and prosecutors dates back more than a decade, even if we only consider the case of Kim Soo-chang, then head of the Jeju District Prosecutors' Office, who was caught engaging in indecent acts on the street 11 years ago. Even if the judiciary had taken that time as the threshold for self-purification and reflected on itself, we would not have reached this state, this kind of country. As the perpetrators of the violence in the court were released on probation in the appeal trial, the futility of the law and the dirty authority of the judiciary fell to the ground with disgusting, clumsy admonitions. The court riot is not an accidental crime. It was a direct challenge to the judicial system and an attack on the foundation of the rule of law. The violence that took place in the sacred space of the courtroom is a direct challenge to the authority of the state and public power. Nevertheless, the judiciary handed down lenient sentences for reasons such as 'accidental crime,' 'submission of a letter of repentance,' and 'agreement with the victim.' Is this really the right judgment of the judiciary, which should uphold the rule of law? Perhaps the judiciary itself felt a sense of perverted relief at being lynched. Could it be that there was a tacit sense of guilt about the organizational culture where entertainment and pleasure are taken for granted while being watched by the people?

Early this morning, August 5, 2025, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's Security Investigation Division conducted a search and seizure of Pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon of Sarang Jeil Church and the church. The compulsory investigation of Pastor Jeon, who was accused of instigating intrusion into specially constructed buildings and was identified as the mastermind behind the Western District Court intrusion incident, has begun. This investigation, which took place seven months after the incident, raises several important questions. Why were the actual perpetrators of the court riot given lenient suspended sentences, while the investigation into the alleged mastermind was delayed by seven months? If Pastor Jeon actually incited this incident, why were the perpetrators dealt with leniently first? These differences in timing and severity of punishment raise serious questions about the consistency of the judicial system.

The most worrying aspect of the judiciary's response this time is the possibility of a political judgment conscious of external pressure and social repercussions. The court must uphold equality and fairness before the law in all cases and maintain independence that is not swayed by power or public opinion. However, the image of the judicial authorities in this case is difficult to find consistency. They handed down suspended sentences to those who actually used violence, along with a disgustingly gruesome message disguised as warmth, saying, "You won't do that again, will you?" and conducted a massive predawn search and seizure seven months later on those suspected of being behind the scenes, showcasing an investigation that was as good as nothing. This is not a step-by-step approach based on the nature of the case and legal responsibility, but a discriminatory response based on different criteria.

A particularly problematic issue is the inconsistent sentencing standards shown by the judiciary. Compared to other cases of a similar nature, the combination of leniency towards the perpetrator and the belated hard-line response to the suspected mastermind is contrary to fairness. This pattern, which repeatedly appears in cases involving powerful institutions or those that garner significant social attention, raises questions about whether the judiciary is truly fulfilling its role as the guardian of the law.

The rule of law is the principle that the law is above all else. Whether a person is powerful or an ordinary citizen, whether a cause is popular or not, everything must be equal before the law. However, if the judiciary obscures the punishment for a crime with a lenient message to the perpetrator and responds to the suspected mastermind with a belated investigation, this is an act of denying the rule of law itself. Court violence is a clear criminal act, and appropriate punishment for it is essential for maintaining social order and preventing recidivism. However, the excessive leniency shown by the judiciary can rather encourage similar crimes and send the wrong signal of tolerating challenges to public authority. At the same time, the belated investigation into the person behind it amplifies questions about the agility and consistency of the judicial system.

Today's search and seizure of Jeon Kwang-hoon is an example of how the judicial authorities respond to social pressure and changes in the political environment, beyond investigative activities. The contrast with the lenient punishment of the perpetrators of the Western District Court riot suggests that the judicial authorities' response is governed by political factors rather than legal judgment. If the judiciary avoids social controversy or adjusts the timing and intensity of judgments and investigations in response to changes in the political environment, it will no longer be the guardian of the law, but an institution swayed by political calculations. The arrogant investigations and collusive double standards of the judiciary since liberation have led the public to fundamentally question, "Why does the judiciary exist?" True judicial justice does not come from looking at the power's mood or examining public opinion trends, but from principled judgments based solely on law and evidence, which is textbook, but in reality, the judiciary is a breeding ground and hotbed of corruption and crime.

The Korean judiciary is now at a critical crossroads. Will it return to its original role as the guardian of the rule of law, or will it continue to deliver unprincipled judgments and meaningless investigations while being mindful of power and public opinion? The excessive leniency shown in the court riot case and the belated investigation into the masterminds are dangerous signals that it is heading down the latter path. The judiciary can no longer regain public trust. The level of the people has also become terrible, and there are hardly any intellectuals left who can criticize the dirty judiciary. The line, "You won't do that again, right?" is an echo that only criminals can utter. This famous line, which cannot establish the authority of the law and leaves doubts even in the judge's own judgment, reveals the identity of the judiciary that has become the priming water for the future destruction of Korea. It is doubtful whether there was actually an era of old sages who sought to realize true rule of law through strict application of the law, fair punishment, and consistent investigation, and whether we are descendants who inherited such genes.

The difference in time and response shown by the leniency towards the court rioting mob and the search and seizure of the pastor in disguise starkly reveals how vulnerable the rule of law is in Korea. Korea will be ruined because of the judiciary. It will be ruined not because of a lack of weapons and tactics in war, but because of people who do not fulfill their duty as guardians of the law and do not need to gain the public's trust through independent and principled judgments and investigations that are not swayed by power and public opinion.