Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae Reported on First Day of Judicial Distortion Law... Will Punishment Be Possible?

President Lee's Public Official Election Act Case Last Year
"Unlawful Neglect of Duty Is Ongoing"
Legal Community: "Applying Newly Established Criminal Provisions
to Past Trials Is Unconstitutional"

On the first day of the enforcement of the so-called “Three Judicial Reform Laws” on the 12th, Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae was reported to authorities for alleged violation of the newly established judicial distortion crime. The accusation is related to the case concerning President Lee Jaemyung’s violation of the Public Official Election Act. In the legal community, the prevailing view is that it will be difficult to establish the charges, as applying the newly established criminal provisions to past trials would violate the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law.

On the 13th, the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee held a government audit on the Supreme Court, attended by Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae and others. 2025.10.13 Photo by Kim Hyunmin

According to the legal community on the 13th, attorney Lee Byungcheol of the law firm IA filed a complaint the previous day with the National Police Agency and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, seeking punishment of Chief Justice Cho and Supreme Court Justice Park Youngjae for the crime of judicial distortion. The complaint alleges that when the Supreme Court remanded President Lee’s Public Official Election Act case last May, it intentionally distorted the trial by making a ruling in a short period of time without thoroughly reviewing over 70,000 pages of litigation records in paper form.

The core argument of the complaint is retroactive application through characterization of the offense as a “continuing crime.” In a phone interview with The Asia Business Daily, attorney Lee stated, “A judge’s failure to meticulously review the records in paper form is a clear violation of the written document principle according to Supreme Court precedent, making the ruling itself invalid.” He further emphasized, “Since the trial did not lawfully conclude, the unlawful neglect of duty is ongoing as a continuing crime, which makes it possible to apply the new law.”

However, the legal community believes that punishment would not be possible based on the constitutional principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law. Professor Jinah Cha of Korea University Law School explained, “Under the principle of legality, there must be a penal provision in effect at the time the act was committed for punishment to be possible,” adding, “It is not permissible to retroactively punish past conduct by establishing a penal provision after the fact.”

A lawyer who previously served as a constitutional researcher also explained, “By the time the Supreme Court made its remand decision, the judge’s involvement in the trial had already been completed,” and added, “Bundling already concluded past rulings as a continuing crime to apply a newly established penalty retroactively raises significant constitutional concerns.”

As this is the first complaint filed immediately after the enforcement of the judicial distortion crime, attention is focused on how investigative authorities will assess the arguments for retroactive punishment and characterization as a continuing crime.

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