The Supreme Court’s Explanation for Its Swift Decision
The Supreme Court provided a detailed explanation for its rapid decision to overturn and remand the case involving President Lee Jae-myung’s alleged violation of the Public Official Election Act. According to the Court, the swift action was necessary due to procedural delays in the first and second trials, as well as conflicting substantive judgments. These issues led to what the Court described as “unprecedented chaos and judicial distrust,” prompting the majority of justices to prioritize swift procedural progress.
The Court also addressed allegations that the trial was rushed, stating, “From the moment this case was received by the Supreme Court, all justices reviewed the records and proceeded with a full bench deliberation.” This response was part of an opinion submitted to the National Assembly on the 13th, marking the first official reply to claims made by the Democratic Party of Korea that the judiciary had conducted a rushed trial to interfere in the presidential election.
Background of the Case
President Lee was initially found guilty in the first trial, then acquitted in the second trial for the election law violation case, and finally received a guilty ruling from the Supreme Court on May 1. The Court emphasized that the procedural steps taken were in compliance with relevant regulations such as the Criminal Procedure Act. It also highlighted that the Chief Justice individually confirmed the opinions of all justices before proceeding to the next step, refuting claims of a rushed trial.
The Court noted that a full bench deliberation began immediately after the election law case was received by the Supreme Court on March 28 of this year. All justices and research judges reviewed the trial records during this time. Although the fact that the case was referred to the full bench was made public on April 22, the Court had been reviewing the case approximately one month prior.
Clarifying Misconceptions
The Supreme Court stated, “The claim that the full bench deliberation began on April 22 and that the ruling was delivered within 9 days of deliberation is untrue.” This clarification aimed to address misunderstandings about the timeline of the case.
The Court also argued that it was not unusual to deliberate President Lee’s case directly in the full bench rather than in a smaller division composed of four justices. It explained, “In cases of significant social importance, such as the case involving abuse of state power, there have been precedents of proceeding with full bench deliberations without smaller division reviews. The principle is that Supreme Court cases are deliberated by the full bench, with smaller division trials being an exception.”
Although it was reported that the Supreme Court initially assigned the case to a smaller division on April 22 before referring it to the full bench approximately two hours later, the Court stated that it was never originally assigned to a smaller division.
Emphasizing Neutrality and Consensus
Furthermore, the Supreme Court reiterated, citing the full bench ruling on President Lee’s case, “Under the recognition that the chaos and judicial distrust caused by procedural delays and conflicting substantive judgments in the first and second trials were unprecedented, a consensus formed among the majority of justices that a thoroughly neutral yet swift procedural progress was necessary.” It added, “The Supreme Court’s attempts and efforts for swift procedural progress in this case could send a clear message and have a positive impact on various courts handling similar cases requiring timely resolution.”
Clarifying the Role of the Chief Justice
The Supreme Court explained, “While the Chief Justice exercises litigation control rights as the presiding judge, they hold the same authority as other justices regarding the deliberation of the trial.” It added, “Since the Chief Justice must consider the opinions of all justices when designating full bench deliberation dates, it is structurally impossible for the Chief Justice to unilaterally decide the trial schedule or the outcome of the ruling.”
