Supreme Court: "No Job Relevance in Ji Guiyeon Allegations... Investigation Results Must Be Awaited"

Lawyers Present at the Gathering Were Judicial Trainees and Public Legal Officers 15 Years Ago
Supreme Court: "Presiding Judge Ji Has Never Handled Cases Retained by These Lawyers"

Judge Ji Guiyeon is speaking about the media disclosure before the trial of former President Yoon Seokyeol on charges of leading a rebellion, held on the morning of April 21 at Courtroom 417 of the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Joint Press Corps

The Supreme Court has concluded that it should handle the matter of the alleged "room salon entertainment" involving Presiding Judge Ji Guiyeon, who is in charge of the criminal case against former President Yoon Seokyeol on rebellion charges at the Criminal Agreement Division 25 of the Seoul Central District Court, after reviewing the results of the investigation by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO).

On the 30th, the Court Audit Committee stated, "Based on the facts currently confirmed, it is difficult to determine that there are grounds for disciplinary action against Presiding Judge Ji. Therefore, we will wait for the results of the investigation by the investigative authorities, and if any misconduct is revealed in the future, we will deal with it strictly."

The Supreme Court's Office of Ethics and Audit explained that, through on-site investigations at the bar and interviews with those involved, the two lawyers who were present at the drinking party were "judicial trainees and public legal officers who were working in the same region about 15 years ago, when Presiding Judge Ji was serving at a certain court. Both are 7 and 9 years junior in legal experience compared to the judge."

The office further stated, "As a senior in the legal profession, Presiding Judge Ji became acquainted with these juniors, who were working alone in a region with few legal professionals, by encouraging them and buying them meals. Until the COVID-19 pandemic, they met about once a year. Typically, the judge paid for the expenses and would have meals and drinks with these junior colleagues during the first round."

The visit to the bar in question took place on August 9, 2023. The group first met for dinner and drinks at a sushi restaurant near Gyodae Station at the invitation of Presiding Judge Ji. Later, at the suggestion of Lawyer A, who expressed regret at not meeting for a long time, they moved to the bar in question, which Lawyer A frequented.

The Supreme Court stated, "According to the statements of those involved, Presiding Judge Ji and Lawyer B did not hear where they were going when moving to the next location, and upon entering the bar, they saw that it had a large hall with live music facilities. They did not consider it to be what is commonly called a 'room salon.'"

Regarding the bar, the Supreme Court explained, "Before any alcohol was served, they asked a waiter to take a photo. According to the statements, the judge had one or two drinks after the ordered bottle was served and then left shortly thereafter. There was no occasion when a female employee was present at the table while the judge was there."

The Supreme Court clarified that Presiding Judge Ji had never handled a case in which these lawyers were retained. The Supreme Court stated, "None of the participants had any cases pending before the judge's panel at that time, and in the past ten years, the judge has never handled a case where these individuals were appointed as representatives. Furthermore, since the gathering on August 9, 2023, the judge and the participants have not met again."

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