During the past four years, President Moon Jae-in anxiously pushed reforms in South Korea’s law enforcement system, whether for the sake of social justice or for the security of his leftist rule. In the area of prosecution, the campaign has faced significant obstruction from Prosecutor-General Yoon Suk-youl and most mainstream prosecutors. In the court, Moon has had far better cooperation from the top leader of the judiciary, if not from the entire benches of law.

The National Assembly’s impeachment of a senior judge last week, the first in the 73-year history of the republic, demonstrated the ruling force’s loss of discretion in the exercise of its huge majority in the legislature. And the event dramatically exposed the willingness of Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo to comply with the power holders about their political goals, including the disposal of specific judges.

Picked up by President Moon from the obscurity of a district court chief to represent the nation’s judiciary, the chief justice may find himself a part of the current regime, although the republic’s Constitution defines the independence of the court. Media commentators and opposition spokespersons call for his exit from the honorable office. Groups of senior judges, former bar association heads and law professors across the country issued manifestos demanding Kim leave the Supreme Court.

The impeached Im Sung-geun is one of the 14 senior judges who were prosecuted for their roles in the “collaboration” between the court and the Park Geun-hye administration. He was accused of interfering in the trial of a Japanese newspaper correspondent in Seoul, who was indicted here in 2014 for defaming the then president Park in connection with the Sewol ferry tragedy.

Im was acquitted of the power abuse charge, but he wanted retirement to avoid political attack. In May last year, he asked the chief justice to allow his resignation before he faced impeachment by the Assembly. The head of judiciary refused to do so on the grounds that the court might not disrupt the legislature’s move. Last week when ruling party lawmakers started the impeachment motion, Im disclosed the transcript of the dialogue he had with the chief justice.

Kim Myung-soo, who had denied he had discussed the impeachment problem with Im, apologized, attributing his lying to a loss of memory. The prestige of his office and respect for it floundered. The Constitutional Court will finalize the case like the US Senate does.

From Im’s case, we are watching the complicated interaction between the ruling power that changes by general elections and the judiciary, a constant institution responsible for keeping law and order. When the Republic of Korea government came into being, the three tiers of district, appellate and Supreme Court were filled with jurists trained under the Japanese colonial rule. Their general trait of conservatism continued thereafter.

During the subsequent authoritarian rule up until the 1980s, the chief justice often exhorted judges to be conscious of “national objectives,” referring to the government’s basic anti-Communist stance, thus calling for stern punishment of pro-North Korean activities. In later years, as social polarization developed between the haves and have-nots, the conservatism that prevailed in the court better served the interest of those who can afford the aid of legal expertise.

And then there appeared movements by some individual jurists to seek a new culture of legal justice. Like-minded lawyers formed groups such as “the Association of Lawyers for Democratic Society” while some liberal-oriented judges founded “study groups” on international human rights laws and other progressive ideas. These groups formed the bases of reformists in the legal community.

Meanwhile, both ruling and opposition parties recruited increasing numbers of jurists from the court, prosecution and academy to meet the needs for legal experts, offering nominations for general elections. Also showing growing presence in successive National Assemblies along with former jurists are political activists who usually had led student protest movements and later joined parties as aides to lawmakers.

When former chief justice Yang Seung-tae sought the cooperation of the Park Geun-hye administration for its project of establishing a second top court to ease the heavy workload of the existing Supreme Court, it looked for opportunities to give the administration something in return. One such case was the trial of the Japanese Sankei Shimbun correspondent Tatsuya Kato. Im Sung-geun allegedly conveyed the wishes of the chief justice for a guilty verdict.

After Park was removed from office through impeachment, the new administration pursued a renewal of the prosecution and court environment to go by with the “spirit of the candlelight revolution.” Yang Seung-tae was arrested in February 2019 as the mastermind of what the new rulers condemned as “courthouse wrongdoings.” He has been tried for more than two years now on 12 counts of charges, but most of 14 other judges, including Im Sung-geun have been acquitted. The ruling force chose the impeachment option.

While the protracted hearings of the former chief justice cooled public interest, the grave controversy over the current court chief, Kim Myung-soo, emerged to shock the legal and civil communities. As the former and present chief justices are put to “social trial,” the people’s verdict is harsher on the incumbent leader of the judiciary.

The chief justice who is in the highest position of deciding what is right and wrong, legally, is now shown to be cowardly collaborating with the ruling power. The Supreme Court head told Im Sung-geun: “…I have to look into the political situation… I am for your resignation, not for your impeachment, but, to be frank with you, if I accept your resignation, think how they will react, now making such a fuss about impeachment… (Your resignation) blocks their impeachment talk and blame falls on me, which is just undesirable.”

All terrestrial and cable networks broadcast the recording along with the many YouTubers, so every viewer could memorize these words. The chief justice explained to Im Sung-geun why he had to cooperate with ruling party lawmakers in their political ritual and why he had to offer them a sacrifice.

The chief justice is kowtowing to the political power while they try to intimidate judges who are acquitting past wrongdoers and punishing their current lawbreaking associates. This is many times worse than his predecessor who interfered with the libel trial of a foreign journalist and in some other cases. Both are bad, but I feel far greater shame from what the present court head does.


Kim Myong-sik
Kim Myong-sik is a former editorial writer for The Korea Herald. -- Ed.