Kim Ki-hyun: "Im Seong-geun's impeachment is not justified... Kim Myeong-su should be impeached first" [Full Text]

"Cannot Agree with Impeachment Claim Even If It Violates the Constitution"
Why Was There Silence During the First Trial Verdict a Year Ago, but Suddenly Now?

First Trial Verdict States Im Judge's Actions Are Outside Job Authority
"Im Judge's Impeachment Prosecution a Sacrifice... Ultimately an Impeachment Deal"

Kim Ki-hyun, member of the People Power Party. Photo by Dongju Yoon doso7@

[Asia Economy Reporter Hyunju Lee] On the 4th, regarding the impeachment motion against Judge Im Seong-geun submitted to the National Assembly plenary session, Kim Ki-hyun, a member of the People Power Party who spoke on parliamentary procedure, stated, "Even if Judge Im Seong-geun acted improperly, I cannot agree with the claim that impeachment should be pursued to the extent of violating the Constitution."

Kim said, "This is a first-instance judgment that was already delivered a year ago. Why was there silence a year ago, and why is it suddenly being pushed now?" He asked, "Was it not grounds for impeachment a year ago, but now it is?"

He continued, "According to Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, simply violating the Constitution or laws is not grounds for impeachment; the violation must occur in the execution of official duties to constitute grounds for impeachment." He added, "If a judge uses their position to request business favors from others, it may be grounds for criminal punishment or disciplinary action, but not for impeachment." He explained, "The first-instance judgment ruled that Judge Im's actions were 'not within the scope of official duties but were acts using his position or personal relationships,' so they do not fall under official duties and thus do not constitute grounds for impeachment as defined by the Constitution."

Kim also said, "The impeachment motion's Item B (involvement in referring a summary case to trial) concerns a matter for which a reprimand disciplinary action was already taken in 2018," adding, "Re-prosecuting an issue that has already been disciplined violates the principle of double jeopardy."

Furthermore, he stated, "Looking at the constitutional and legal provisions cited in the impeachment motion, it becomes clear how absurd this impeachment claim is," and warned, "If such a motion, lacking even internal consistency and being extremely sloppy, is passed, it will remain a disgrace for all members of the 21st National Assembly."

Kim argued that if any judge should be impeached, the first target should be Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo. He said, "It was revealed that Chief Justice Kim lied about not accepting Judge Im's resignation," and "At that time, Chief Justice Kim reportedly said, 'We must consider the political situation. If the resignation is accepted, the National Assembly cannot discuss impeachment, which could lead to criticism.'" He added, "This has led to controversy that Chief Justice Kim made an impeachment deal, sacrificing Judge Im to the National Assembly's impeachment motion."

Below is the full text of Kim's parliamentary procedure speech.

Title: Let's Not Leave a Stain on the History of the National Assembly.

Honorable Speaker Park Byeong-seug!

And fellow senior and colleague members!

I am Kim Ki-hyun of the People Power Party, representing Nam-gu Eul, Ulsan.

The people are currently facing serious threats to their very survival. At such a critical time for livelihood issues, why are we putting aside the people's concerns and suddenly talking about judge impeachment?

Moreover, this concerns a first-instance judgment already delivered a year ago. Why was there silence a year ago, and why is it suddenly being pushed now? Was it not grounds for impeachment a year ago, but now it is?

(Presentation of chart)

When the second-instance guilty sentence against Governor Kim Kyung-soo was delivered on November 6 last year, the ruling party immediately attacked the judges.

It was the same when the first-instance guilty sentence against Jung Kyung-shim was delivered on December 23.

When the court decided to suspend the execution of the disciplinary action against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl on December 24, the ruling party again directly attacked the judges.

Still, when a judge who tried to keep his conscience delivered a guilty verdict against Representative Choi Kang-wook on January 28, suddenly the issue of judge impeachment was raised, which is how the public sees it.

There are also remaining trial issues ahead.

It is hard to deny that there is a desire to send a strong signal regarding the Ulsan mayoral election manipulation, illegal manipulation of the Wolsong nuclear power plant shutdown, illegal travel ban on Kim Hak-eui, and trials related to former Minister Cho Kuk's corruption.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Judge Im Seong-geun acted improperly.

However, I cannot agree with the claim that impeachment should be pursued to the extent of violating the Constitution. The issue of punishing Judge Im should be left to the judicial process.

1.

The reason for the first-instance acquittal is that Judge Im's actions did not fall within the scope of the official duties of the position he held at the time. This means that the acts described in the impeachment motion were not part of official duties.

According to Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, simply violating the Constitution or laws is not grounds for impeachment; the violation must occur in the execution of official duties to constitute grounds for impeachment. For example, if a judge uses their position to request business favors from others, it may be grounds for criminal punishment or disciplinary action, but not for impeachment, because it is unrelated to official duties.

The first-instance judgment ruled that Judge Im's actions were "not within the scope of official duties but were acts using his position or personal relationships." Therefore, since it does not fall under official duties, it does not constitute grounds for impeachment as defined by the Constitution.

2.

The impeachment motion's Item B (involvement in referring a summary case to trial) concerns a matter for which a reprimand disciplinary action was already taken in 2018. Re-prosecuting an issue that has already been disciplined violates the principle of double jeopardy. Also, since the matter was considered minor and only a light disciplinary action was taken, the claim to dismiss based on this is against common sense.

3.

The first-instance judgment states that Judge Im did not commit acts infringing on judicial independence. Yet, if impeachment is pursued, it means trying to imprison based on an acquittal judgment. Isn't that absurd?

4.

Looking at the constitutional and legal provisions cited in the impeachment motion, it becomes clear how sloppy this impeachment claim is. If passed, it will truly be a shameful National Assembly.

(PT)

Article 1 of the Constitution: Popular Sovereignty

Article 7 of the Constitution: Career Civil Service System

Article 12 of the Constitution: Due Process in Compulsory Investigation

Article 101 of the Constitution: Composition and Organization of the Judiciary

Article 103 of the Constitution: Judicial Independence

What do these provisions have to do with this case?

Article 38 of the Criminal Procedure Act, concerning the form of judgments?what does that have to do with it?

Trying to force-fit these, the impeachment motion is so poorly made that even a passing cow would frown.

If the motion is passed, it will become a subject of study both domestically and abroad. But if it is handled with such a sloppy and internally inconsistent content, it will remain a disgrace for all members of the 21st National Assembly.

5. Was there an impeachment deal?

If any judge should be impeached, I believe the first target should be Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo.

Chief Justice Kim was caught lying about not accepting Judge Im's resignation.

At that time, Chief Justice Kim reportedly said, "We must consider the political situation. If the resignation is accepted, the National Assembly cannot discuss impeachment, which could lead to criticism." He is embroiled in controversy over allegedly making an impeachment deal, sacrificing Judge Im to the National Assembly's impeachment motion.

If the motion is passed under these circumstances, it will increase distrust in the government among the sound, moderate public who have common sense.

6. Conclusion

Honorable senior and fellow members!

I respectfully request you to make a wise judgment so that the 21st National Assembly does not leave a stain on the history of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea.

Thank you.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.