Judge Kang Gyu-tae, who was overseeing the trial concerning the alleged violation of the Public Official Election Act by Lee Jae-myung, the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea, announced his resignation ahead of the regular judicial appointments in February. He resigned without concluding the trial, which had been dragging on for 16 months without a verdict. The law stipulates that cases involving violations of the Public Official Election Act should be concluded in the first instance within 6 months for a swift trial. Judge Kang had already exceeded this time frame by 10 months, indicating a breach of the law. If he had a sense of responsibility or conscience as a judge, he should have delivered the verdict even if it was delayed. However, he resigned without delivering the verdict and concluding the trial. It is rare for a judge presiding over such an important case to display such irresponsible behavior.
The case is not particularly complex. In this case, the Chairman claimed during the last presidential election that he did not know the key operative in Daejang-dong land development scandal and falsely publicized that the development of Baekhyun-dong was achieved through threats from the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. The Chairman’s claim of not knowing the key operative in Daejang-dong scandal and the fact that they played golf together during a foreign trip have been revealed. It is not a trial that should take a long time. However, Judge Kang conducted a pre-trial preparation process to organize the issues of the case for a full six months before the formal trial, scheduling trial dates at a rate of ‘every two weeks’ from the beginning. Since August of last year, the trial has been postponed for over two months due to reasons such as the Chairman’s hunger strike. In October of last year, he even rejected the prosecution’s request to consider having a trial once a week. There is a high possibility that he may have initially considered not delivering a verdict, as if a guilty verdict is given, it would be difficult not to find the Chairman guilty.
An even more serious issue is the significant possibility that, along with Judge Kang, two other judges in the trial panel may be replaced next month. This is primarily due to the court’s internal regulations, which mandate a two-year term for the presiding judge in a criminal division and an annual rotation for associate judges. In important trials, events and nuances that occur during the trial process can influence the judge’s determination of guilt or innocence. However, if the entire trial panel is replaced, this continuity is disrupted, leading to further delays in the trial. This, in itself, is unjust. Looking at the proceedings of this trial, it goes beyond injustice and can be seen as judicial corruption, an abuse of the judicial system.
There is also a possibility that such incidents may occur more frequently in the future. The trial panel currently presiding over the case involving private businesses in Daejang-dong scandal is also slated for replacement next month, and the judge handling the corruption cases related to Daejang-dong and Baekhyun-dong involving the Chairman is set to be replaced in February next year. The corruption cases in Daejang-dong and Baekhyun-dong involve extensive investigative records, making it challenging to reach a verdict by February next year. In such a scenario, these trial panels may leave without delivering a verdict. There is a concern that judges may pretend to conduct trials and then pass the responsibility of delivering the verdict to the successor trial panels, a practice known as ‘passing the bomb.’ Measures, such as amending internal court regulations and establishing specialized criminal judges at the Supreme Court level, need to be implemented to address these issues.
The judge responsible for reviewing the arrest warrant for the Chairman rejected the warrant. It is within the realm of possibility for a warrant to be rejected, but the reasoning and legal basis must be clear. However, the legal rationale presented by the judge left people puzzled. Given that over 20 individuals related to the Chairman’s case have been arrested, it was difficult to comprehend why the arrest warrant for the Chairman himself was denied. Now, just before the verdict in the trial on the false disclosure of information, a case that any reasonable person could judge, the presiding judge resigned abruptly, seemingly fleeing the scene. Currently, the Chairman’s side is manipulating the judicial system by employing various means to delay the trial. In this context, it’s hard not to view Judge Kang Gyu-tae as complicit in this abuse of the judicial system.
