South Korea’s Constitutional Court on April 10 unanimously rejected an impeachment motion against Justice Minister Park Sung-jae, allowing him to resume his post after a 119-day suspension.
The court acknowledged some legal violations but ruled they were not serious enough to justify his removal. “There were breaches of the law, but they were not grave enough to warrant dismissal,” the court said in its decision.
Park was impeached by the National Assembly on Dec. 12 over his role in a Cabinet meeting held just before former President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law on Dec. 3. Lawmakers accused Park of failing to oppose the martial law declaration and of subsequently meeting with former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min to discuss follow-up measures at a presidential safe house in Seoul.
The impeachment motion also cited Park’s refusal to submit requested documents to parliament, including records of special expenses by the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office and prison transfer logs for Jang Si-ho, a key figure in the Park Geun-hye–Choi Soon-sil corruption scandal. They also accused him of breaching protocol by walking out of a plenary session.
Park had earlier asked the court to swiftly dismiss the impeachment, claiming it disrupted constitutional order. But the court found the impeachment motion legitimate and aimed at holding public officials accountable, adding that the presence of political motives did not amount to an abuse of power.
The court dismissed allegations that Park had participated in or supported the martial law declaration. “Simply attending the Cabinet meeting or not actively opposing the martial law plan does not prove that Park strengthened the president’s decision,” it said. It also ruled the meeting at the safe house did not amount to involvement in an insurrection.
The court found that Park’s refusal to submit certain documents, including Jang’s prison transfer records, violated the Act on Testimony and Appraisal Before the National Assembly. However, it noted that Park had later allowed lawmakers to inspect related documents during a site visit, mitigating the severity of the breach.
As for the prosecutors’ spending records, the court said parliament’s request was procedurally flawed, failing to comply with proper notification procedures.
The court also rejected the claim that Park violated any specific laws by leaving the National Assembly session before a vote was completed, saying there was no legal requirement for Cabinet members to remain in the chamber until the end of the vote.
