[오늘과 내일/장택동]野 calling it a “crazy ruling” and 與 calling for “court detention”｜Dong-A Ilbo

Editorial writer Jang Taek-dong said, “I salute the wise judgment of the judiciary, the last bastion of democracy.” This is what Representative Lee said in October 2020 when the Supreme Court overturned and remanded Lee Jae-myeong, the leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was the governor of Gyeonggi Province at the time, for not guilty on charges of publishing false information under the Public Official Election Act. About four years later, on the 15th of this month, when he received a suspended prison sentence in another case for publishing false facts under the election law, Representative Lee said, “If you, the citizens, make your judgment based on common sense and justice, you will be able to reach a sufficient conclusion.” . This means that the ruling goes against common sense and justice.

Noh pours out vitriol at the court for “judicial murder”

The Democratic Party’s response is much more crude. At an off-site rally on the 16th, the day after the ruling, there was a heated reaction, calling it a “crazy ruling.” Then, at the Supreme Council meeting on the 18th, the level was raised even further, with comments such as “judicial murder” and “Is it true that (the judge in charge) graduated from Seoul Law School?” Even before the ruling, the Democratic Party created separate organizations such as the Prosecution Dictatorship Countermeasures Committee and the Judiciary Justice Special Committee to battle public opinion, and Lee’s supporters submitted more than 1 million ‘not guilty petitions’ to the court. On the day of the ruling, leaders and supporters gathered in large numbers inside and outside the courtroom. It is at a level that can only be seen as pressure on the judiciary.

Even when Lee Hwa-young, former vice-governor of Gyeonggi Province for Peace, was found guilty in the first trial of the Ssangbangwool remittance to North Korea case in June, the Democratic Party poured out criticism, including “the judge’s prejudice, self-righteousness and arrogance.” The ultimate purpose of the Democratic Party’s campaign for public opinion would be to elicit more citizen sympathy for the argument that Lee’s ruling is unfair and to force the court to listen to it. However, if excessive vitriol and pressure toward the court is repeated, there is a high possibility that antipathy will grow. Although there are voices of concern within the Democratic Party, supporters also submitted a petition signed by 1.12 million people to the first trial of Representative Lee’s perjury case, which will be held on the 25th.

The People Power Party criticizes the Democratic Party as “scaring judges,” but in reality, it shows no different from the Democratic Party. Even before the verdict was announced, CEO Dong-Hoon Han said, “Even if we follow precedent, he is guilty,” and Rep. Jin-Woo Joo and others even mentioned specific sentences, saying, “It is highly likely that he will be sentenced to one year in prison.” It is enough to be seen as putting pressure on the court to find him guilty. This may be the same reason why ruling party lawmakers staged a one-person relay protest in front of the court demanding that Representative Lee’s trial be broadcast live.

“Prison sentence this time” increases pressure

After Representative Lee was found guilty of election law, the ruling party appears to have gained even more momentum. They are asserting that in the perjury trial, a prison sentence will be imposed and that the person should be immediately detained by the court. Within the party, a ‘Task Force to Prevent Trial Delays’ was established yesterday. It appears to be a strategy to appeal to public opinion by mobilizing a separate organization like the Democratic Party, but this will not have the effect the ruling party expected. Looking at the ruling party trying hard to influence the court, it is questionable whether Lee’s statement after the election law ruling, “I pay respect to the judiciary’s decision,” is sincere.

The Constitution stipulates that ‘judges shall judge independently according to their conscience.’ However, the ruling and opposition parties are trying to shake the ‘conscience’ of judges and undermine ‘independence’ as if competing for this representative trial. When ordinary citizens become parties to a trial, they fight over evidence and legal principles in court, and if they think the decision is wrong, they only have to appeal and receive a decision from a higher court through appeals. They cannot even imagine trying to do anything about the court outside of the court. This should be sound common sense and the basis of the rule of law, but it seems that the two political parties are not keeping up with the level of the people.

Today and tomorrow >

SubscribeSubscribe

I also recommend these subscriptions!

• 

  gibberish

• 

  Reciting a Chinese poem into a movie

• 

  Eunhwa Lee’s art class

Editorial Writer Jang Taek-dong will71@donga.com

• great
  0dog

• I’m sad
  0dog

• I’m angry
  0dog

• I recommend it
  dog