‘Trial Interference Charges’ Im Seong-geun Former High Court Chief Judge Acquitted (Comprehensive)

1st and 2nd Trials "Recognition of Judicial Independence Violation... Legally, Abuse of Authority Crime Not Established"
Investigation Team "Supreme Court's First Case Ruling 'Abuse of Authority Punishment Not Possible' for Violation of Judicial Independence"

Im Seong-geun, former Chief Judge of Busan High Court Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] Former Busan High Court Chief Judge Im Seong-geun, who was prosecuted for intervening in frontline trials during the tenure of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae, has been acquitted.

With the acquittal of former Chief Judge Im, all 14 former and current judges indicted in connection with the 'judicial scandal' have now been acquitted by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) on the 28th upheld the lower court's acquittal verdict in the final appeal trial of former Chief Judge Im, who was charged with abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights.

Former Chief Judge Im was indicted for intervening in the trial of the Seoul bureau chief of the Japanese Sankei Shimbun, who was charged with defamation against former President Park Geun-hye, while serving as the senior criminal presiding judge at the Seoul Central District Court in 2015.

He was also charged with intervening in trials, such as instructing the first-instance judge in the case of lawyers from the Lawyers for a Democratic Society arrested and injured during an incident to review sentencing expressions, and ordering a review of a summary order for gambling charges against a famous professional baseball player.

Earlier, the first trial court acknowledged that "former Chief Judge Im's intervention in the trial infringed on judicial independence," but ruled that "legally, the crime of abuse of authority does not apply," and acquitted him. The second trial court also upheld the first trial's ruling, stating, "The prosecution's facts fall under cases where there is no proof of crime, so the acquittal verdict by the lower court is appropriate."

The Supreme Court also agreed with the lower courts' judgments. The court stated, "There is no error in the lower court's ruling that found no proof of crime regarding the prosecution's facts and acquitted the defendant, nor did it violate the rules of logic and experience or exceed the limits of free evaluation of evidence, nor did it misinterpret the legal principles concerning the establishment of the crime of abuse of authority."

Earlier, the National Assembly filed the first-ever impeachment trial request against a judge, targeting former Chief Judge Im last year. However, the Constitutional Court dismissed the impeachment trial request in October last year with a 5 (dismissal) to 3 (acceptance) vote. The Constitutional Court ruled that since former Chief Judge Im had already retired from his judicial position due to the expiration of his term during the impeachment trial proceedings, dismissal was appropriate as the impeachment trial's legal requirements were not met.

After the Supreme Court's final ruling on former Chief Judge Im, the judicial scandal investigation team sent a message to the press corps emphasizing, "This is the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled that even if a judicial administrative authority intervenes in a trial and infringes on a judge's judicial independence, it cannot be punished as abuse of authority under the law."

They added, "The investigation team prosecuted this case and related judicial administrative abuse cases on the grounds that illegal intervention by judicial administrative authorities in trials constitutes abuse of authority, just like illegal intervention by the president or senior secretaries of the presidential office in the management of private companies, which is a domain of private autonomy, or illegal intervention in audits by the highly independent Board of Audit and Inspection."

They continued, "Cases involving abuse of authority charges against other senior judicial administrative officials at the Court Administration Office are still pending at the Supreme Court, and cases involving illegal trial intervention by the Supreme Court Chief Justice and others are ongoing in the first trial. We will continue to do our best to maintain the prosecution so that a more just criminal law evaluation can be made in the future."

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