hankyoreh

Judge Jee Kui-youn. (Hankyoreh file photo)

It was recently revealed that Judge Jee Kui-youn, the presiding judge for former President Yoon Suk-yeol’s insurrection trial, changed his mobile phone twice — once when he ordered Yoon’s release from pre-trial detention, and again when the Democratic Party of Korea raised allegations of Jee being treated to multiple visits to a hostess bar.  In other words, the judge replaced his phone each time he was suspected of wrongdoing.

The truth regarding these allegations can only be uncovered if Jee’s call history is disclosed. However, the Supreme Court’s audit committee stated on Tuesday that allegations of Jee’s visits to hostess bars “lack relevance to his duties.” The Supreme Court reached this conclusion based solely on statements from Jee and his acquaintances who were present at the drinking gathering. The decision inevitably raises questions about what ulterior motives the court may have beyond simply seeking to protect one of its own.

According to materials submitted by telecom companies to the Democratic Party, Jee replaced his six-year-old mobile phone with the latest model on Feb. 4, the day Yoon’s representatives filed for the former president’s detention to be canceled. A month later, on March 7, Jee rescinded Yoon’s detention, allowing the former president to walk free. 

Then, when the Democratic Party raised allegations of the judge visiting high-end bars, the judge switched to a new phone again on May 16, just three months after his earlier replacement. It has been reported that this was not a typical device change, as he replaced just the SIM card for his phone twice at five-minute intervals in the early morning. This strongly suggests Jee wanted to hide something in his phone’s call history.

However, the Supreme Court stated on Tuesday that it is difficult to conclude from the facts confirmed thus far that there are grounds for disciplinary action. The court justified this decision by saying that none of the attendees had any cases pending before Jee’s court at the time, nor had Jee handled any cases in the past 10 years where the attendees were appointed as representatives. 

This conclusion was reached based solely on the statements of the bar owner and two lawyers who attended the problematic gathering and are Jee’s junior colleagues. It appears the Supreme Court audit committee did not even attempt to obtain Jee’s phone during its four-month investigation. 

How can the public possibly accept the conclusion of such a lax audit? The Democratic Party publicly released the whistleblower’s statement on Tuesday, claiming Jee received lavish hospitality on multiple occasions, directly refuting the Supreme Court’s announcement. The official statement from the Supreme Court, which should command authority as the nation’s highest court, lost credibility in less than 24 hours.

Public trust in the judiciary has plummeted to an unprecedented low under Chief Justice Jo Hee-de. Jo and the judiciary must take responsibility for their actions. The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials must swiftly investigate the allegations against Jee to quell public anxiety and concerns over the insurrection trial.

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