Political Circles Favoring 'Trial Delays'... Completing Lawmakers' Terms Despite Calling It 'Judicial Risk'

Published 04 Dec.2023 14:59(KST)

On the 29th of last month, the first trial verdict related to the ‘Moon Jae-in administration Blue House’s alleged ordered investigation case’ concerning the local elections held in June 2018 resulted in a series of prison sentences, including 3 years imprisonment each for former Ulsan Mayor Song Cheol-ho and Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Hwang Un-ha. This came 3 years and 10 months after the indictment. It had already taken 1 year and 6 months from the start of the prosecution investigation to the indictment. During that time, former Mayor Song, who was elected as Ulsan mayor, completed his term and retired last year. Lawmaker Hwang received his parliamentary badge and is expected to complete his term until May next year, before the court’s final judgment. Although there is a ‘judicial risk’ due to prosecution investigations and court appearances, it does not seem to affect lawmakers completing their 4-year terms. This sharply contrasts with ordinary public officials, who can be suspended from their positions upon indictment. This is the background behind criticisms that this might be a ‘new type of privilege’ exclusive to lawmakers.

[Photo by Beopryul Newspaper]

Trial delays are particularly prominent in cases involving politicians. Some lawmakers even welcome trial delays because it helps them complete their terms. Former Democratic Party lawmaker Choi Kang-wook, who was indicted for issuing false internship certificates to the son of former Minister Cho Kuk, lost his parliamentary seat after the Supreme Court confirmed an 8-month prison sentence with a 2-year probation in September. This was 3 years and 8 months after his indictment in January 2020. By then, Choi had already completed more than 80% of his 4-year parliamentary term. In Choi’s case, there were criticisms that the Supreme Court was delaying its review after it was revealed that despite sending multiple notices of receipt of litigation records, they were not delivered due to ‘no one answering the door.’

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was sent to trial last October on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act, requested three postponements citing a hunger strike. He also cited the National Assembly audit as a reason for absence but did not appear at the audit venue. The trial court handling the case is likely to change due to personnel changes next year, so it may take even longer until sentencing.

The trial of the judicial administrative power abuse allegations also prolonged. The case involving former Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae and others took 4 years and 7 months until the first trial’s closing arguments. However, the difference lies in the fact that the trial period was extended due to lengthy witness examinations to ascertain the substantive truth.

Jang Gi-pyo, director of the New Civilization Policy Institute and who recently declared the founding of the Privilege Abolition Party, said, “In the case of election crimes, Article 270 of the Public Official Election Act stipulates that the first trial must be held within 6 months from the date the prosecution is initiated, but this is not being observed, allowing lawmakers facing election-related trials to continue enjoying privileges.” He added, “While the presumption of innocence is important, measures at the level of the National Assembly Act and party regulations are needed to suspend duties when a guilty verdict is delivered in the first trial.”