The People Power Party (PPP) has criticized a court ruling that overturned the conviction of Democratic Party (DPK) leader Lee Jae-myung in an election law violation case. Calling the appellate court’s acquittal of Lee “unacceptable” after a lower court had sentenced him to prison, the PPP urged the Supreme Court to “rectify” the decision.
The DPK welcomed the ruling and shifted its focus to the Constitutional Court, demanding an immediate ruling on President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment case and calling for his removal from office “without delay.”
In the past, political parties typically expressed respect for judicial decisions regardless of the outcome. However, a growing number of conflicting rulings in high-profile cases have eroded public trust in the judiciary. When the same case yields opposing verdicts depending on the judge or court, public confidence in the legal system weakens.
The judiciary has also come under scrutiny in the investigation into Yoon’s insurrection case. The Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO), which lacks jurisdiction over such cases, obtained arrest and detention warrants from the Seoul Western District Court instead of the Central District Court, raising accusations of “warrant shopping.” Forty days after Yoon’s indictment, the court reversed its decision, citing concerns over detention duration and the CIO’s authority, warning that the case could be overturned on appeal.
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that appellate courts must have “clear and compelling” grounds to overturn lower court decisions in criminal cases. Yet, in Lee’s election law violation case, the second trial acquitted him despite no new evidence or testimony. In a separate perjury case, a key witness was convicted of lying under oath, but Lee was acquitted of subornation.
Similar inconsistencies have surfaced in other politically sensitive cases. In an election-meddling case under the Moon Jae-in administration, former Ulsan Mayor Song Chul-ho and lawmaker Hwang Un-ha were sentenced to three years in prison in the first trial, only to be acquitted in the second. Such rulings have fueled perceptions that judicial decisions are influenced by political considerations.
The Constitutional Court has also faced criticism. In the case of Lee Jin-sook, the Korea Communications Commission chairperson, the court rejected an impeachment motion in a 4-4 split decision. While opposition-appointed justices dissented, questions remain over the legal basis for impeaching an official just two days after taking office. Amid public opinion polls showing that four in ten South Koreans distrust the Constitutional Court, justices later unanimously dismissed an impeachment motion against the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection and rejected Prime Minister Han Duck-soo’s impeachment by a 7-1 vote.
For South Korea’s judiciary to restore public confidence, court rulings must be consistent, regardless of the defendant, judge, or jurisdiction. If verdicts continue to shift unpredictably, legal proceedings risk becoming a gamble rather than a pursuit of justice. Meanwhile, political leaders who have tied their futures to these court battles face criticism for deepening distrust in the legal system.
