The Supreme Court’s ethics committee said on Sunday it decided to recommend that judges exercise caution when using social networking services to avoid “unintended consequences.”

Following the decision, made on Thursday at the Supreme Court’s ethics committee meeting, the Supreme Court issued recommendations outlining what to be careful of when using social networking services.

According to the committee, the recommendations summarize SNS-related issues judges need to be beware of and will help “increase the trust in the judicial system.”

Under the guidelines, judges should have a close understanding of the characteristics and directions for using social networking services to avoid causing a public stir, the committee said.

Judges are also recommended to practice caution in setting privacy settings for comments and personal information and maintain “dignity” and avoid showing biases and prejudices they may have online, it added.

Other recommendations included avoiding commenting on specific cases, and on social or political issues that could lead to the judge becoming central to discussions surround them.

The question regarding judges and their use of social networking services to express their personal views became a social issue late last year after some judges expressed opposition to the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement online.

On Nov. 22, Judge Choi Eun-bae of the Incheon District Court caused a stir by criticizing the ratification of the Korea-U.S. FTA. on his Facebook account, saying that he would remember the day when “the president and trade officials who are pro-American to the bone sold off the country’s economy and the people.” While some supported Choi for making a “statement of conviction,” others expressed concern that he may be compromising his neutrality as a judge.

The following month on Dec. 16, Seo Ki-ho, a former judge with the Seoul Northern District Court, further prompted controversy by posting criticisms of President Lee Myung-bak on his Facebook and Twitter accounts.

The ethics committee said while the characteristics of social network services still remain to be discussed, communicating through these channels as a judge should clearly fall under the public domain.

Recommendations by the committee are not binding.

By Choi He-suk  (cheesuk@heraldcorp.com)