Democratic Party’s pressure on the courts over Lee’s retrial risks hurting rule of law
As South Korea hurtles toward an early presidential election on June 3 — triggered by the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol last month — a deeper institutional drama is unfolding. It centers not on campaign promises or policy platforms, but on the integrity of the country’s legal system.
The main opposition, the Democratic Party of Korea, is mounting an aggressive effort to delay criminal trials involving its candidate, Lee Jae-myung. That campaign now risks undermining the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional order itself.
Lee, the party’s standard-bearer and current frontrunner, faces 12 criminal charges across five ongoing trials. The stakes of these proceedings are enormous: not only for his political future, but for the legitimacy of South Korea’s democratic institutions. On May 1, the Supreme Court overturned a previous acquittal of Lee in one of the cases — a charge related to violating the Public Official Election Act — and remanded it for retrial. The party’s response triggered controversy as it accused the judiciary of “election interference,” launched a public campaign to delay the trial, and issued veiled threats that it would impeach Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae if the hearings proceed before the June vote.
Such actions raise serious concerns. The Democratic Party claims the court acted with suspicious speed — pointing to the fact that the decision came only 34 days after the case file reached the Supreme Court. It calls the ruling “unprecedented” and a “judicial coup.” But critics argue that the real anomaly is not judicial haste, but the party’s attempt to shield its candidate from legal scrutiny through political pressure.
The timeline tells a more complex story. These charges did not materialize in the heat of an election season; they have been under litigation for over two years. And much of the delay can be traced to Lee’s own legal tactics: refusing to accept court documents, missing hearings and flooding proceedings with excessive witness requests. South Korean law sets out a “6-3-3 rule” — first trials should take six months, with three months for each appeal — so that election-related cases should be resolved within one year. Lee’s case has dragged on for two years and eight months. The court’s recent actions seems abrupt only because the legal process has been obstructed until now.
This is not to suggest that courts are immune from criticism. The judiciary must remain impartial and accountable, particularly in politically charged cases. But the Democratic Party is not merely questioning a legal outcome — it is attempting to suspend the judicial process altogether. In doing so, it is moving from democratic oversight into dangerous territory: institutional coercion.
Even more troubling is the party’s suggestion that trials involving an elected president should be legally suspended, effectively granting de facto immunity to any winning candidate. South Korea’s Constitution does shield sitting presidents from prosecution, but only while in office. To exploit that clause preemptively — using electoral victory as a shield from legal consequence — would set a perilous precedent. It implies that power, once attained, can nullify accountability.
Such logic undermines not only the rule of law but public faith in the democratic system itself. Elections are meant to affirm legitimacy, not erase legal vulnerability. If criminal liability can be bypassed through political success, then democratic norms begin to unravel.
A robust democracy depends on a clear separation of powers and a judiciary that is free to act without fear of political retaliation. The Democratic Party has every right to campaign vigorously. But it should do so in the public square. And Lee Jae-myung’s legal fate — and his political future — should be determined through the courts and at the ballot box, not by threats, delays or backroom deals. If the Democratic Party truly trusts the will of the people, it should let both justice and democracy run their course.
