Biased rulings continued even after Cho Hee-de's parliamentary audit
In the three days after Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-de testified at a National Assembly audit, a series of rulings overturned first-instance convictions or heavy sentences: Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon was acquitted, and former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae's sentence was reduced by 16 years from his first trial. Did the courts' pattern of rulings change this dramatically right after the audit of the Supreme Court leadership? We examine the verdicts and the reasoning the panels put forward.
On the 6th, Chief Justice Cho Hee-de appeared before the National Assembly audit, refused to take a witness oath, and argued that the Blue House's demand to renominate Constitutional Court justices was unconstitutional. Critics called this a political act that directly challenged the National Assembly's power of checks and the president's authority to appoint justices.
On the 30th, the 38-2 Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judges Jung Soo-young, Choi Young-kak, and Jang Sung-jin) acquitted all eight defendants — former generals and former commanders who deployed troops — connected to the 'hamburger meeting' ahead of the December 3 martial law declaration. These were the figures responsible for the troop deployment. The panel reasoned that they had no prior knowledge of the situation and carried out orders without a clear judgment on their unconstitutionality or illegality. However, critics point out it is problematic that the court deemed them not guilty even though troop deployments continued after martial law was declared.
On the 23rd, the 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Goo Hoe-geun) acquitted Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon in the appeal trial over allegations that he had a third party pay pollster Myung Tae-kyun's survey costs. The panel dismissed Mr. Myung's testimony as lacking credibility, saying it was mixed with speculation and exaggeration and contained many contradictions with objective facts, while accepting most of the claims that Mayor Oh had requested the third-party payment. The first-instance court had found him guilty on five counts that matched objective circumstances despite exaggerations and errors in Myung's testimony, but the appellate court rejected the testimony itself and overturned even the circumstantial evidence. Lawyer Park Pan-gyu noted on a broadcast on the 29th that the ruling was built on the premise that Oh Se-hyun would never break the law, with the rest of the logic unfolding from that assumption.
On the 21st, the 1st Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Yoon Sung-sik) reduced former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae's sentence by 16 years in the appeal trial over his involvement in the insurrection. The Seoul Central District Court's 33rd Criminal Division (Presiding Judge Lee Jin-gwan), which handled the first trial, sentenced him to 25 years in prison — higher than the special prosecutors' requested term — severely condemning the role of a justice minister who knew the illegality of the insurrection. However, Judge Yoon's panel, while finding that the former minister recognized the unconstitutionality and illegality, convicted him on only two of seven insurrection-related directives. The order to dispatch prosecutor personnel to the martial law command's Joint Investigation Headquarters was acquitted on the grounds that it was a "perfunctory directive." But the joint investigation unit, tasked with arresting and interrogating those resisting martial law, is considered one of the most critical activities for the success and continuation of martial law.
Suspicion has been raised that these rulings were no coincidence, but rather that some within the judiciary aligned themselves with the confusion in judicial norms opened up by Chief Justice Cho Hee-de's political maneuvering. Analysts say the key to containing this judicial reaction lies in blocking 'judges' entrenchment' in the regular judicial personnel appointments next February.
