Sitting Judge Says "Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su Should Offer a Sincere Apology"... Attention on Whether Judges Will Continue Naming Critics (Comprehensive)

Real-Name Post Released Ten Days After Audio File Disclosure
“Chief Justice Kim’s Refusal to Accept Resignation Was an Inevitable Choice” Statement Made
Also Refutes Claims by Presiding Judge Im Seong-geun

Seungyong Song, Chief Judge of Suwon District Court. / Photo by Legal Times Legal Professionals Directory

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] On the 14th, a sitting chief judge publicly demanded an apology from Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo through the court's internal network regarding the conversation with Busan High Court Chief Judge Im Seong-geun and the false explanations.

Since the release of Chief Judge Im’s recorded file on the 4th, numerous critical posts have appeared on external anonymous boards by judges. However, possibly due to concerns about personnel disadvantages, no other posts with real names were posted on the court’s internal network except for a post by Daegu District Court Chief Judge Jeong Wook-do on the same day titled “Who is doing politics now?” expressing concerns about the politicization of the judiciary.

With the posting of a real-name critical post by a sitting chief judge ten days after the release of the recorded file and Chief Justice Kim’s apology, attention is focused on whether voices of internal criticism within the court will continue.

According to the legal community on the 15th, Suwon District Court Chief Judge Song Seung-yong demanded a sincere apology from Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo through a real-name post on the court’s internal network the previous afternoon.

At the beginning of his post, Judge Song stated, “Recently, for the first time in constitutional history, a resolution for the impeachment of a sitting judge was made. I would like to write down a few brief thoughts related to this matter in no particular order.”

Refusal to Accept Resignation Inevitable... Refuting Im Seong-geun’s Claims of ‘Need for Fact-Finding Investigation and Intent to Intimidate All Judges’

First, he expressed his position regarding Chief Judge Im’s impeachment.

After listing the reasons for Chief Judge Im’s impeachment, he refuted Im’s claim that “a fact-finding investigation under the National Assembly Act should precede, and this impeachment push is suspected to have an impure intent to intimidate all judges.”

Regarding Im’s claim that “a fact-finding investigation should precede,” Chief Judge Song pointed out, “According to the impeachment proposal confirmed through the National Assembly’s bill information system, in addition to the previously stated reasons for impeachment, eight pieces of evidence and other reference materials for investigation, including criminal records and trial records related to Seoul High Court case 2020No471, are attached at the end of the impeachment proposal.”

This implies that sufficient verification of facts has already been conducted during the prosecution investigation and trial process and is contained in the criminal and trial records.

Next, Chief Judge Song listed procedural regulations under the Constitutional Court Act concerning oral arguments and witness examinations, asserting, “I believe that fact-finding investigations for the pronouncement of dismissal decisions can be conducted through such oral arguments.”

He stated, “Furthermore, I find it difficult to agree with the claim that the initiation of impeachment is due to impure political intentions aimed at intimidating all judges.”

Since the 2018 National Judges’ Representative Meeting had resolved that the acts of the then Court Administration Office officials constituted “serious constitutional violations that should be reviewed not only through disciplinary procedures but also impeachment procedures,” this impeachment stems from self-reflection within the judicial community.

Chief Judge Song then expressed his position on Chief Justice Kim’s conduct in refusing to accept Chief Judge Im’s resignation due to the National Assembly’s impeachment push and on Chief Justice Kim’s remarks contained in the recorded file.

He said, “If the necessity of impeachment is recognized as above, it is proper for the Chief Justice to respect the impeachment procedure of the National Assembly, which is the third constitutional institution. As seen earlier, this impeachment involves some evaluation of the unconstitutionality of Im Seong-geun’s conduct in the first-instance criminal judgment, so the Chief Justice needed to be cautious in accepting Im’s resignation.”

In other words, Chief Judge Song expressed the view that Chief Justice Kim’s refusal to accept Chief Judge Im’s resignation, who was being discussed as an impeachment target in the National Assembly, was inevitable.

“Chief Justice Kim’s Conversation Content and False Explanation Are Shocking and Deserve Criticism... Must Offer a Sincere Apology”

Chief Judge Song pointed out, “However, some parts of the conversation between the Chief Justice and Chief Judge Im Seong-geun, which were disclosed before the National Assembly’s impeachment vote, and the Chief Justice’s false explanations are inappropriate and deserve criticism regardless of any circumstances or reasons.”

He continued, “The Chief Justice, as the head of the judiciary, said in his office, a public space, to a junior judge who came for a meeting that the National Assembly, the representative institution of the people, was ‘making a fuss about impeachment,’ and that in his opinion, it would not constitute grounds for impeachment. These remarks were shocking in that they showed no reflective consideration of past mistakes.”

He added, “The Chief Justice’s statements denying any mention of impeachment in the conversation with Chief Judge Im or claiming unclear memory about an event from about nine months ago after the recording was released, leading to false explanations, are hard to believe as remarks from the head of the judiciary who should symbolize justice.”

Chief Judge Song emphasized, “The Chief Justice himself has caused the current crisis of trust. He must now seriously recognize the gravity of the situation and offer a sincere apology to the public and all members of the judiciary.”

He added, “That apology should include reflection and regret over the first impeachment of a judge in constitutional history. It should not be dismissed as unrelated because it happened during the tenure of the previous Chief Justice.”

He stressed again, “The current Chief Justice, as the highest responsible person of the judiciary, has inherited all assets and liabilities of the previous Chief Justice. Even if the interference in trials and infringement of judicial independence occurred during the previous Chief Justice’s term, the failure to take appropriate disciplinary measures is entirely the responsibility of the current Chief Justice.”

Chief Judge Song said, “Therefore, the Chief Justice’s apology must honestly acknowledge his own faults and be a genuine and resonant apology that can comfort the public who are disappointed and even feel betrayed by the judiciary and the Chief Justice. It should not be a mere apology.”

He proposed, “To guarantee the sincerity of the apology, the judicial scandal must be responsibly resolved,” suggesting the formation of a Judicial Truth and Reconciliation Commission, publication of a judicial scandal white paper, and rights restoration and damage recovery for victims related to judicial scandal rulings.

Concerns Over Politicization of Judiciary and Judicial Overreach... “Judicial Independence and Political Neutrality Must Be Emphasized More”

Chief Judge Song also expressed his views on judicial independence and judicial reform.

He said, “Judicial independence and political neutrality are very important,” expressing concern that “politicization of the judiciary and judicial overreach have become commonplace.”

Chief Judge Song pointed out, “Political cases flood into the courts incessantly, and one side of the political camps rejects and opposes the judicial conclusions based on factional logic. Judgments influenced by political interests and indiscriminate criticism and reproach of individual judges seriously threaten judicial independence.”

He added, “This undermines the constitutional authority of the judiciary, which is the last bastion for protecting fundamental rights, leading to severe division and conflict, and ultimately causing a tremendous regression of democracy and the rule of law. In such circumstances, judicial independence and political neutrality must be emphasized even more.”

At the end of his post, Chief Judge Song said, “It is time to return to the original intention. Although time has passed, it is not too late. Even now, mistakes should be apologized for and errors corrected.”

He urged Chief Justice Kim, “You must redouble your efforts to eradicate judicial scandals and complete judicial reform to return the courts to the people. Restoring public trust in the judiciary must be the sole and ultimate goal of judicial administration.”

He concluded, “Then, like when you used to take the bus in Chuncheon, get off the subway, and walk to the Supreme Court building in Seocho-dong, I hope that on the day you retire, you will step down with only the honor and pride of having been the head of the highest court.”

“Hope This Post Opens the Way for Healthy Discussions…”

Finally, Chief Judge Song expressed hope that his post would open the way for various opinions from fellow judges regarding the current situation.

He said, “This post is merely my personal opinion, and I sincerely hope it will not be politically interpreted or cause unnecessary misunderstandings. I hope this post will open the way for healthy discussions within the court and that we can overcome this crisis with our own capabilities.”

Chief Judge Song, a 29th Judicial Research and Training Institute graduate, is from the progressive judges’ group Uri Beop Yeonguhoe and served as the public relations secretary of the temporary National Judges’ Representative Meeting convened when allegations of abuse of judicial administrative power by the Court Administration Office surfaced. He also served in a public relations role in the formally launched National Judges’ Representative Meeting in 2018.

He filed a damages lawsuit against former Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae and others, claiming he was classified as a “troublesome judge” and suffered personnel disadvantages during Yang’s tenure.

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