Legal experts say top court seen moving fast to stay above politics, ensure fair election
As the Supreme Court of Korea decided to deliver its verdict on Lee Jae-myung’s election law violation case on Thursday, just nine days after it first reviewed the case on April 22, speculation is growing over the reason for the top court’s earlier-than-expected ruling date.
While many election law violation cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court take more than three months to process, Lee’s case has garnered both public and legal analysts’ attention because the court conducted two hearings in the four days after the case was first taken up by the justices.
The hearings occurring so fast is seen as highly unusual, especially in cases referred to a full bench, which typically meets just once a month.
Though Noh Hee-bum, a former constitutional researcher and lawyer, was surprised by the Supreme Court's decision, in his view, South Korea’s Supreme Court is likely making efforts to ensure a fair election.
“I think the court decided to deliver its verdict early in order to resolve the controversy over candidate eligibility before the presidential election. This will offer people the chance to choose their president based on policies, vision and competence without prejudice and unjust slander from the opposing side,” Noh told The Korea Herald.
According to Noh, the South Korean judiciary has continued to face controversies related to Lee’s case as lower courts “wasted” more time in their rulings than is stipulated in the Public Official Election Act.
While the Public Official Election Act in principle requires the district court and high court to deliver their verdicts on election law violation cases within six months and three months, respectively, the Seoul Central District Court spent more than two years coming to its initial ruling. Then, the Seoul High Court acquitted the liberal presidential front-runner on March 26, four months after the case was assigned to the court.
Explaining that the Public Official Election Act requires the Supreme Court to rule on appeals in election law violation cases within three months of the previous verdict, Noh stressed that the expedited proceedings and ruling should be regarded as a deliberate effort not only to minimize the impact of judicial decisions on the election, but also to show the court’s efforts to issue rulings within the legally recommended time frames.
“If the Supreme Court delivers its verdict after May 11 -- the official deadline for presidential candidate registration -- after spending time reviewing the case, it might be difficult to avoid accusations that the judiciary is politicized or has political intentions,” said Lee Yun-je, a law professor at Myongji University.
“And if Lee Jae-myung wins the upcoming election, he will be protected by presidential immunity. The Supreme Court would have no choice but to suspend proceedings for five years, which would create greater confusion in society,” Lee said.
Article 84 of the Constitution stipulates that a sitting president cannot be charged with a criminal offense, except for insurrection or treason.
There are differing opinions about how to interpret this article, even in the legal community, regarding whether the judiciary needs to proceed with or suspend a case involving a president if it began before he or she was elected. In view of this question, professor Lee said the court found it necessary to rule early.
Lee’s case was initially assigned to a panel of four justices -- a conventional way for the Supreme Court to manage cases it hears on appeal. But Chief Justice Jo Hee-de decided to hear the case in a full court session after considering the high level of public interest and national concern.
A full-court review is one of two procedures by which the court exercises its jurisdiction, convening with at least two-thirds of the justices, with the chief justice presiding.
If the Supreme Court overturns the lower court’s acquittal, the case will be sent back to the lower court for a final and unchallengeable verdict.
Lee could lose both his parliamentary seat and his eligibility to run for public office for a decade. Under Article 19 of the Public Official Election Act, anyone convicted of violating election laws who receives a fine exceeding 1 million won ($700) is barred from running for office for 10 years.
But if the court dismisses the prosecution's appeal, Lee will be cleared of the charges.
The court can also directly deliver a new judgment, including sentencing, based on case records and evidence examined in the first and second trials in the lower courts.
But, legal experts consider it unlikely that a new judgment will be issued by the Supreme Court, citing the rarity of such decisions in criminal cases.
According to Supreme Court data, only 15 cases -- just 0.3 percent of all court rulings in 2023, were resolved by the top court’s issuing a new judgment.
According to the Democratic Party of Korea, Lee has decided not to attend the ruling in person as a defendant's attendance is not mandatory at the top court.
The ruling, which is set to be broadcast live on TV and the Supreme Court's YouTube channel, is due to take place at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, southern Seoul, on Thursday at 3 p.m.
The Supreme Court's final verdicts are reached by a majority vote.
sj_lee@heraldcorp.com
