단상斷想

As the ruling party demands a special court for insurrection in the passport and simultaneously mentions the resignation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, they are talking about the separation of powers, citing infringement of judicial independence. First of all, if the special prosecutor can fully play its role, it will be easier to deal with the insurgents and the insurrectionary party, but the role of Cho Hee-dae, who is holding out like that, is increasingly solidifying the suspicion that he helped the insurrection succeed. As the ignorant public gradually opens their eyes, Cho Hee-dae's mouth will dry up like unsightly dry firewood, his lips will dry white, and he will only roll his eyes more with worry. It looks pathetic, but I am convinced that an organization is needed to punish the crimes of the group that judges crimes.

The separation of powers is a symbolic institution of the wonderful Western modern constitution that is deeply rooted in the bones of the Korean people. But this system is a legal packaging to facilitate Western colonialism. Of course, I have no intention of insisting on a history that seems to go around in circles, claiming that the source of Western civilization was in Asian power. However, if you first doubt the record that Tocqueville looked around American prisons that enslaved blacks in order to write about American democracy, you should consider that there is something wrong with the concept of modern democracy. What does it really mean that American politics was ready to stand at the peak of modern hegemony before the French Revolution? If France had the talent and the United States made the money, could the French Revolution be seen as a destruction of tradition played by incitement? The French Revolution was the result of some kind of force that needed a symbol of the execution of the autocratic royal family.

That Koreans who have experienced all those phenomena praise the French Revolution while spitting is like applauding and cheering the destruction of tradition because their own dynasty's collapsed history is packaged with deception and brainwashing in education. The beginning of modern Korea, which marked the end of the much older Korean history than France, may have been induced and perpetrated by the consent of the members of the nation. It is now okay to admit that Syngman Rhee was an avatar created by the United States for that deception and brainwashing. History books may lie, but history does not lie.

The Lee Jae-myung government has raised suspicions about Cho Hee-dae, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the head of the judiciary, making statements that could directly influence Supreme Court rulings in connection with specific political forces. Around April 2025, shortly after the impeachment was decided, it is said that at a meeting of four people including former Minister of Justice Jeong Sang-myeong, former Acting Prime Minister Han Deok-soo, Kim Chung-sik, and Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, Chief Justice Cho said, "When the Lee Jae-myung case comes to the Supreme Court, I will take care of it." Kim Chung-sik was identified as the person who led this meeting, and he is known as the lover of Choi Eun-soon, the mother of Kim Kun-hee. Even if he is not the president's mother-in-law's lover, it is clear that the level of morality of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Minister of Justice, and the Acting Prime Minister of a country is too low, and the source of their belief that the judgment of the law will not be directed at them is also unclear, requiring intellectual and emotional verification of high-ranking public officials in Korea.

Whatever the context of this statement, it is a serious problem that the Chief Justice mentioned that he would "take care of" a case involving a specific politician. The Supreme Court must operate independently of all political influence, and judgments must be based solely on legal principles and evidence. Nevertheless, the fact that the head of the court directly prejudged the outcome of the case or shared it with a specific political group casts doubt on the fairness and independence of the entire judiciary. Their psychology, which is not ashamed of such a low level of morality, is also worthy of study.

In fact, this controversy is not limited to the remarks of one person. The long-standing concern that the judiciary is secretly connected to the political world and that 'judicial politicization' is underway has resurfaced. In Korean society, the political neutrality of the judiciary has always been a matter of controversy. During the authoritarian era, rulings were made to suit the taste of the regime, and even after democratization, there have been constant criticisms that the judiciary has not been able to make independent judgments in a subtle relationship with the regime. This revelation confirms such suspicions once again with a specific example.

Political reactions are sharply divided. The Democratic Party is taking a hard line, demanding that Chief Justice Cho clarify his position. Some lawmakers are even mentioning the possibility of impeachment, arguing that the head of the judiciary should be held accountable. On the other hand, some in the conservative camp and the legal community argue that "pressuring the Chief Justice to resign based on unverified recordings risks undermining the principle of separation of powers." The Presidential Office is maintaining a relatively cautious stance, but has not expressed a clear opinion in the face of escalating conflict between the judiciary and the political sphere.

However, the core of the problem is fact-checking. The veracity of the recordings, who actually made the statements and in what context, and whether there was any editing or distortion, must be verified independently. The parties involved are also likely to strongly deny the allegations or claim they are distortions. Therefore, there is a growing call for an independent investigation body to investigate the truth.

If the revealed content is confirmed to be true, Cho Hee-dae will inevitably face not only moral responsibility but also professional responsibility. The fact that the head of the judiciary attempted to undermine the fairness of a ruling due to political interests adds a painful blemish to constitutional history and only imprints the South Korean judiciary as being below par. Conversely, if the credibility of the recordings is low or contextual distortions are confirmed, this situation may be recorded as an example of the political sphere attempting to 'politicize' the judiciary in order to pressure it.

This incident is also directly related to the discussion of judicial reform. Until now, judicial reform has mainly focused on the issue of controlling the power of the prosecution, but now there is a growing voice calling for a comprehensive reform that includes the possibility of abuse of power by the Supreme Court and senior judges. In particular, a system for transparently managing external contacts of senior judges, strict avoidance regulations for cases with conflicts of interest, and transparency in the judiciary's internal decision-making process should be discussed urgently.

Furthermore, this incident raises a fundamental question about the role the judiciary should play in a democratic society, beyond institutional problems. The judiciary must be the guardian of the Constitution and laws, and the final arbiter independent of political interests. However, if the head is linked to a specific power and makes a promise to "take care of it," the people will not be able to trust the outcome of the trial and may act like the Z generation in Nepal, who directly flaunt their power. Among Cho Hee-dae's past rulings are: the guilty verdict for former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook's political fund law violation, the acquittal of former National Intelligence Service Director Won Sei-hoon on charges of violating the National Intelligence Service Act in connection with the "comment rigging" case, the acquittal of former President Park Geun-hye on all charges of bribery and coercion, the legality of sanctions against the documentary 'The Century War,' and the acquittal of Kim Ki-choon and Cho Yoon-sun on all charges of abuse of authority and coercion, revealing his political inclinations to the world. Perhaps this country has not moved a single step away from the colonial era, when law and order favored certain forces. It's like France might be a symbol of lost traditional authority, not a symbol of the free revolution.

Ultimately, the most important thing in this situation is a transparent investigation into the truth and the imposition of responsibility according to legal procedures. If this issue is handled wastefully in terms of political debate or election strategy, public distrust of the judiciary will be difficult to recover. All parties must refrain from emotional responses and reveal the truth through independent investigation and objective verification. In the process, the political neutrality of the judiciary must be restored, and institutional mechanisms must be put in place to prevent similar incidents from recurring. The political neutrality recovery of the judiciary is not as easy as it sounds, because its roots lie in the Japanese political system, that is, the three powers of judicial, legislative, and administrative power came from the collusion between defeated Japan and the United States.

Cho Hee-dae's future is not limited to the fate of one individual. It is directly related to the future of Korean democratic politics and the judiciary, and the fundamental question of whether the people can believe in justice and fairness. The public is paying close attention to whether this case will not end with exposure and allegations, but will be an opportunity for the judiciary to regain its independence and trust.