The meaning of the national judges' representative meeting, where all five agenda items were rejected.

Introduction: The Door to the Confusion that the Supreme Court Has Opened

On May 1, 2025, the Supreme Court's en banc decision determined to overturn the ruling in the case of Lee Jae-myung, the presidential candidate from the Democratic Party, for violating the Public Official Election Act, declaring him guilty. This decision is not just a verdict that determines the legal fate of one politician, but an event that shakes the very foundation of the judicial system in South Korea. Many in the legal community were predicting an acquittal based on the appeals court's not guilty verdict. There were no significant issues with the facts of the case, and it was widely believed that the legal reasoning would not be new. However, the Supreme Court chose a conclusion that went against both these expectations and the common sense of the people. The real issue was not the "content" but the "timing." The fact that a ruling could potentially strip away his eligibility to run for office just a month before the presidential election is difficult to explain without considering its political implications. Moreover, the legal community believes that "it will be difficult to reach a conclusion in the retrial before the election." Procedurally, there was no advantageous time for the defendant, and even a typical retrial process requires at least 27 days. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court hurriedly made its decision, indicating that it was fully aware of the implications it would have on the election, which raises further concerns. Some have even mentioned the possibility of expedited proceedings, including the omission of submitting a brief for appeal. Since the guilty conclusion has already been established by the en banc decision, it is interpreted that the retrial could push towards a conclusion without substantial debate. If that were to happen, it could result in an unprecedented situation where a leading presidential candidate loses their eligibility before the election, effectively allowing the judiciary to interfere in politics. Even if a conviction is not achieved before the election, the political repercussions have already manifested. The ruling party has demanded the candidate's resignation based on the Supreme Court's judgment, plunging the entire political sphere into confusion surrounding legal interpretations. There is also the possibility that the Supreme Court may not recognize the privilege of non-prosecution even after the presidential election, foreshadowing conflicts regarding constitutional interpretation. This ruling amounts to a political act disguised as judicial judgment. The subsequent National Conference of Judges was silent and unable to exert any restraint, leading the judiciary to lose its sense of purpose. We are now witnessing a distorted reality where politics dominates in the name of the law.

"Main Point

The recent Supreme Court ruling is cloaked in the guise of 'legal legitimacy,' but its essence is a product that thoroughly responds to political context. A ruling by the full bench typically takes several months to years. However, this case reached a conclusion just six months after the acquittal in the second trial. Questions about why the Supreme Court rushed this decision cannot be answered solely by procedural neutrality. While the formal ruling is a remand, its substance sends a message closer to a confirmation of guilt. Despite the structure requiring lower courts to continue their assessments, it basically commanded a retrial while establishing guilt as a given. In this way, shifting the political burden onto lower courts while the Supreme Court claims 'procedural neutrality' can only be perceived as evasion of responsibility.

Silence of the Judges' Conference: Collapse of Internal Checks and Balances

In light of these actions by the Supreme Court, the National Judges' Representatives Conference has failed to issue any criticism. Five items demanding concerns about the politicization of the judiciary and improvements to the system were submitted, but all were rejected. The reason given for the rejections was that "opinions differed," but this is merely an avoidance of substantive discussion. The Judges' Conference is supposed to be the last bastion that performs oversight and self-regulation within the judiciary. However, what was revealed in this meeting was inertia and evasion. Not taking a public stance is essentially a declaration that there will be no checks on political interference. The more significant issue is the fact that there was no self-reflection on the rulings, nor was there any discussion even postponed regarding future improvements to the system.

Judicial Crisis as a Structural Issue

This situation is not just a matter of a single ruling or the outcome of a meeting. It is an event that reveals the structural limitations of the judiciary as a whole. The Supreme Court reacted swiftly to the political agenda and hastened its judgment, while the judges' meeting failed to provide any checks. By choosing not to decide, the judiciary cooperated with politics, and that silence acted as another political message. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea positions the judiciary as a check on the executive and legislative branches. However, the current judiciary is deteriorating into a coordinator, or even a conformer, rather than a check. Following the verdict regarding Lee Jae-myung, a significant portion of the public has come to strongly perceive that the judiciary is not independent, leading to a collapse of trust in the judicial authority as a whole.

Conclusion: Neutrality without Definition, Silence without Responsibility

The judiciary is not merely a machine for judgment. It is the final bulwark that protects the rights of the people, realizes justice, and checks power. However, the recent ruling and subsequent responses have portrayed the judiciary as rejecting its own reason for existence. Neutrality is not silence. It stems from the courage to speak in the name of the law before power. The Supreme Court's conviction ruling and the silence of the judges' meeting reflect a portrait of an era where that courage has vanished. In this time of shaking constitutional order, the judiciary must again ask itself. A judiciary that cannot answer the question, 'Whose side are we on?' can no longer be on the side of the people. Justice is not a matter of principle but of practice, and silence is not independence but an abandonment of responsibility. The people can no longer trust a silent judiciary. When the last bulwark of democracy crumbles, the responsibility lies not with the politicians but with the silent judiciary.