[The Editors' Verdict] Concerns Over Defiance of Court Rulings

Seokjin Choi Legal Affairs Reporter

[Asia Economy Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] Nowadays, most sports have introduced the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system, which has significantly reduced incorrect decisions by referees. However, just a few years ago, it was not uncommon for a single wrong call to change the entire flow of a game. Everyone has probably experienced the frustration of watching a player from their favorite team receive an unfair judgment.

Of course, the opposite has also happened. I recall a parody advertisement featuring actor Im Chae-moo dressed in a black soccer referee uniform, holding up ice cream instead of a red card. In the 2002 Round of 16 match against Italy, referee Moreno, who officiated the game, consistently made calls favoring the host nation, South Korea, and even sent off Italy’s captain Totti, contributing to Korea’s advancement to the quarterfinals. After the match, he faced controversy over his decisions and even received death threats, but the rulings were never overturned. Excessive backlash against referees’ decisions is itself grounds for ejection.

Referees are human and can make mistakes. More precisely, mistakes are unavoidable. However, the mutual agreement to accept referees’ decisions despite the possibility of errors is what prevents games from descending into chaos and allows them to conclude peacefully.

Just as referees exist in sports, judges serve as referees in our society. That is why the Constitution guarantees judges’ independence, allowing them to adjudicate based on the Constitution, laws, and conscience.

Recently, dissatisfaction with court rulings has gone beyond acceptable limits.

Former Gyeongnam Governor Kim Kyung-soo, involved in the ‘Druking comment manipulation’ case that manipulated public opinion ahead of the presidential election, was confirmed guilty by the Supreme Court last month. Yet, he openly challenged the verdict, stating, “The truth does not change just because it was not revealed.” Former ruling party presidential candidate Lee Nak-yeon said, “I believe in Kim’s sincerity,” and former Prime Minister Chung Sye-kyun remarked, “The courts have not always made accurate rulings.”

Former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk continues to claim innocence even after his wife, Professor Jung Kyung-shim of Dongyang University, and his brother Cho Kwon were sentenced to prison, and after Representative Choi Kang-wook of the Open Democratic Party was sentenced to loss of office for issuing a false internship certificate to his son, and his nephew Cho Beom-dong was confirmed guilty by the Supreme Court. During the investigation, he said, “I will reveal the truth in court,” but when the trial began, he exercised his right to remain silent in his own trial and his wife’s right to refuse testimony. Instead, he published a book filled with claims of his innocence and grievances, continuing to criticize the prosecution. While the right to remain silent is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right and the presumption of innocence applies until a Supreme Court final ruling, this conduct seems excessive.

Former and current Ministers of Justice Chu Mi-ae and Park Beom-gye ordered investigations and inspections related to the case of former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook, who was confirmed guilty years ago by the Supreme Court for accepting illegal political funds from a construction businessman. Although they claimed to be correcting improper investigative practices, it is hard to deny that there was an intent to tarnish the guilty verdict against former Prime Minister Han.

The phenomenon of not merely expressing dissatisfaction with rulings but digging into the personal information of judges who issued unfavorable decisions, and posting petitions on the Blue House bulletin board requesting judges’ dismissal or impeachment, is closely related to this culture of disregarding court rulings by politicians and high-ranking officials.

In a rule-of-law state, objections to rulings must be made through lawful procedures such as appeals and retrials as stipulated by law. Finalized rulings must be respected because they form the foundation that sustains our society.

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