46 Cases of Judge Discipline, But No Dismissals

Reporter Park Dae-yong reported that this is the first time since the 1987 constitutional system that a president has rejected a Supreme Court justice nomination. The president's refusal to nominate a candidate for Chief Justice and demand for a resubmission marked the beginning of significant changes in judicial personnel.

Reporter Park Dae-yong pointed out that although there are approximately 2,680 judges nationwide, it is difficult to find information about the specific judge handling an individual's case. Excluding a small number of judges exposed in the media, it is challenging for the general public to access information about the judge presiding over their trial.

Despite judges' names being public information, general access is restricted. It is hidden through a complex path on the Supreme Court website, requiring users to navigate 'Class A Court Information,' 'Organizational Chart,' and then download the 'National Court Division Composition Table' to barely confirm it.

While the public generally believes the presiding judge writes the rulings, in reality, it is often one of the associate judges next to the presiding judge who writes them. This associate judge is called the principal judge. The presiding judge primarily acts as the moderator of the trial, creating a substantive difference between the perceived and actual author of rulings by the public.

An error was found in the Supreme Court's personnel information data where the position of 'Kim Sung-ryul, Presiding Judge of Cheongju District Court' was mistyped as 'Pinsa' instead of 'Minsa' (civil affairs). This raises questions about the reliability of public personnel records and the accuracy of important judicial information.

New TamSa established a judicial database by analyzing all 50,000 judge personnel records based on information from the Court Administration Agency. This allowed them to verify judges' court work history and department transfers, and disclosed a method for identifying the principal judge using the 'My Case Search Code'.

A full survey of the electronic gazette over more than 20 years confirmed a total of 46 disciplinary cases involving judges. The reasons for discipline varied, including prostitution, drunk driving, inappropriate relationships, and leakage of investigative information. The more shocking fact is that 15 of these judges with disciplinary records are still serving as judges.

Judge Lee Tae-ip was disciplined on June 22, 2023, for damaging the dignity of a judge and the court's prestige due to prostitution in a hotel in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. Judge Lee, who was then serving in the Ulsan District Court, was confirmed to have moved to the Jeonju District Court after the disciplinary action and is still presiding over trials. This demonstrates the reality of the judiciary where judges with disciplinary records perform judicial duties without any restrictions.

Information on 28 judges disciplined for judicial abuse of power was missing from the electronic gazette. Disciplinary notices, usually published under the name 'Judge Disciplinary Action,' were published without the term 'Judge' from 2007 to 2019, seemingly to prevent them from being searched. Some disciplinary notices were even omitted from the gazette's table of contents, raising suspicions of intentional information concealment. As a result, disciplinary records of judges involved in judicial abuse of power cannot be found through regular searches.

Most judges involved in judicial abuse of power received only minor disciplinary actions such as suspension or salary cuts. Reporter Park Dae-yong pointed out that while salary reduction is a significant disciplinary action for judges, many cases show them earning more money after opening a law practice. He added that under the current Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's system, there are limitations to uncovering the full extent of such realities.

Judge Bang Chang-hyun, while serving as the presiding judge of the Jeonju District Court, accepted a request to postpone the ruling in an administrative lawsuit concerning local council members from the Unified Progressive Party, made by a deliberative officer from the Court Administration Agency who was his colleague at the Judicial Research and Training Institute. It was also revealed that he violated his official duties as a judge by revealing his inclination regarding the outcome of the trial, for which he received a 3-month suspension.

New TamSa shared additional analysis results of over 170 judge disciplinary data, emphasizing that countless acts of misconduct, including judicial abuse of power and trial interference, are occurring. Reporter Park Dae-yong argued that beyond simply tweaking some parts, extensive reform of the entire judicial system is needed, even more so than prosecutorial reform. He stressed that transparent information disclosure is a crucial first step towards judicial reform.

Judge Kim Su-cheon received a Range Rover vehicle, including acquisition tax and insurance, totaling 156,244,300 won, and an additional 10 million won from Mr. Jung and others, totaling 166,244,300 won, in exchange for a request to the relevant court. Judge Kim was disciplined with a 1-year suspension and has since retired from his judgeship.

Disciplinary actions for judges are limited to suspension, salary reduction, and censure; dismissal, removal, or demotion are not possible. Reporter Park Dae-yong pointed out that among the 46 disciplinary cases he read, not a single judge was dismissed. This demonstrates the reality that judges' job security is strongly guaranteed by constitutional provisions, with even the maximum disciplinary action, suspension, lasting only one year.

A total of 355 former judges were confirmed to be working in Korea's top five major law firms: Kim & Chang, Bae, Kim & Lee, Lee & Ko, Shin & Kim, and Yulchon. Kim & Chang had 81, Lee & Ko had 22, Bae, Kim & Lee had 21, Shin & Kim had 16, and Yulchon had 14. This raises concerns about the exercise of influence in trials through 'pre-appointment courtesy'.

Reporter Park Dae-yong exposed the practice of 'phone lobbying,' where former judge-lawyers influence trials by calling the relevant court division without formally being retained for the case. This practice generates higher fees than submitting documents and carries the risk of interfering with trials through unofficial means.