hankyoreh

Seok Jin-hwan

By Seok Jin-hwan, assistant editor of social issues desk

In a New Year’s speech at the South Korean Supreme Court, Chief Justice Kim Myeong-soo called out excessive criticism of a judge who granted an injunction for disciplinary measures taken against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl and a district court judge who recently convicted Chung Kyung-shim, wife of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk, on multiple charges.

“We’re in a troubling situation in which legitimate criticism of judicial rulings has given way to personal attacks on the judges. As chief justice, I will continue responding with firmness and boldness to unjust external attacks that infringe upon the independence of the courts,” wrote Kim, whose speech was posted on the Supreme Court’s internal server.

Personally speaking, I think the sentence in Chung’s case was excessive, but that’s an argument that can be made on appeal. Kim’s concerns are completely understandable. Judges can certainly be criticized, but demanding their removal simply because you don’t like their decision isn’t persuasive and only inflames conflict.

Furthermore, the targets of such criticism would never take it to heart. So maybe a different type of criticism would be more effective.

“There are growing concerns among Koreans that the judiciary is exerting too much control over the Republic of Korea. I’m hearing objections that judicial influence over politics and the politicization of the judiciary have reached a dangerous level.” That criticism was openly voiced by Democratic Party leader Lee Nak-yon after a court issued an injunction halting Yoon’s two-month suspension from his duties as prosecutor general.

While Lee’s style of criticism is more cautious and restrained in its language, it’s doubtful that Korea’s courts or judges will pay much attention to it. The problem is that he’s chosen the wrong target.

What Lee wanted to express was his disappointment that the disciplinary action against Yoon for his undeniable wrongdoing had been blocked by the courts. But disciplinary measures are often thwarted because of procedural errors or excessive harshness. It’s obviously the role of the court to verify the legitimacy of the process used to reach a goal.

The reason I’ve quoted Kim and Lee’s remarks at such length, even though they’ve already been covered by the press, is because a Korean court is expected to deliver its verdict on Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong on Jan. 18. Regardless of what verdict the court reaches, the “process” of this trial, which has already gone on for more than a year, is an example of the excessive control of the judiciary mentioned by Lee. That process has also weakened public trust in the judiciary, the very trust that Kim and many judges are trying to defend.

From the first hearing in the trial, the court has made bizarre requests of Lee Jae-yong. The court asked him to implement radical reform on the level of the “new management” declaration made by his father, late Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-hee; to set up an internal system to ensure the company complies with the law; and to rectify problems resulting from Korea’s “chaebol” system of family-owned conglomerates.

Samsung’s legal compliance oversight committee was created in line with the court’s requests, and the court said it would adjust Lee Jae-yong’s sentence based on the committee’s effectiveness. In effect, the court was promising to reduce the sentence for the personal crimes of the head of a chaebol based on the crime prevention system instituted by the company in which that individual holds a majority share. The court has been firm in this position despite pushback from the special prosecutor and from civil society.

Democratic Party lawmaker Park Yong-jin offered the following denouncement of the court’s actions. “[The court] is basically asking the victim, the company that was robbed, to keep its doors locked. [The court] has promised to reduce the sentence [of the person who stole the money] if it can make sure that the company has locked the doors. The court really seems to be getting things backward here.”

If the court uses the legal compliance oversight committee to justify a reduced sentence on Jan. 18, I’m not sure that will be acceptable to the Korean public. As we’ve already seen, the courts provide a final check on the legitimacy of the processes used to reach goals, but even the court hasn’t been fair in its handling of the trial process. I’m worried about what its conclusion may be.

On Jan. 14, four days before Lee’s sentence is announced, the Supreme Court will reach a final decision in the trial of former president Park Geun-hye. When Lee Nak-yon aggressively launched the debate about pardoning Park (and Lee Myung-bak, another former president) on the first day of the year, he probably had in mind the Supreme Court’s verdict, which would set the stage for a potential pardon.

But it doesn’t seem that Lee Nak-yon took into account the sentencing of Lee Jae-yong, who was Park’s counterpart in the influence-peddling scandal that led to Park’s impeachment.

If civic groups’ fears prove true and Lee Jae-yong is given a three-year prison sentence, suspended for five years (a sentence often given to the heads of chaebol), Lee Nak-yon might find it harder to make his case for pardoning the former presidents.

This is all speculation, of course, but if Korea’s most powerful business leader is let off the hook by a generous court and if the two former presidents are pardoned in a political decision, many people will be upset.

The weird timing of the two verdicts and the pardoning proposal have produced a dizzying debate unlikely to end anytime soon. I think it’s time we go back to first principles and pay more attention to processes.

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]