» New judges administer the oath of office at the Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul on Fbruary 23.

The mood in and around Seoul Central District Court is unsettled lately, part of the reaction to new allegations that in addition to assigning cases stemming from the candlelight protests about mad cow to specific judges, there has also been undue influence “from above” in summary trials and arrest warrant application reviews for persons arrested at the protests.

On February 24, the day after allegations that cases were being deliberately assigned to specific judges were first reported in the media, some at the court wrote them off as perhaps “something of a communication problem.” But comments from court officials indicate that judge Heo Man, then a senior judge at the Seoul Central District Court who is currently at the Seoul High Court, demanded of lower judges in the Seoul Central District Court that they give heavier sentences or change the reasons for denying warrants in summary trials and warrant reviews came before them in June and July of last year.

In response, on February 25, the Supreme Court acknowledged that cases had deliberately been assigned to some judges instead of others.

“It is a fact that early in the candlelight-related trails cases were assigned to a certain judge, but procedurally nothing was done wrong,” said the Supreme Court. “The reason the way the cases were being assigned was changed later on was to avoid potential controversy.”

Once new reports surfaced on February 25, in which judges were quoted saying that the Seoul Central District court’s senior criminal judge issued “directives” about the trials and warrant reviews, however, judges quietly began saying that if true it would have been unacceptable, and that the court therefore needs to investigate.

One judge, who was assigned to the Seoul Central District Court until recently, said he “was so surprised I asked other judges what the truth is,” adding that they said only that it “couldn’t be overlooked if true.” A court employee wrote on the internal intranet there that the news is “shocking” and that the “position of the top criminal judge includes protecting criminal trials from undue outside influence.”

The civic group People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy’s “Judicial Watch Center” issued a statement February 25 in which it criticized the court, saying it “makes you suspect” it is “like the prosecution, where you have to obey orders from above,” instead of “a place where judges arrive at decisions independently, in accordance with their consciences, according to the constitution and the law.”

Leaders in the judicial branch of government have remained silent in the face of growing criticism. Suspicions are being fueled further than they might be otherwise for the fact Supreme Court Chief Justice Lee Yong-hoon as well as new Supreme Court Justice Sin Yeong-cheol, the Chief Justice of the Seoul Central District Court at the time the controversial activity would have occurred, have yet to give any explanation.

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