Representative Kim Seung-won's remark has led to debates over the requirements for party dissolution and judicial independence, intensifying political confusion.
Want the next one from this channel too?
Representative Kim Seung-won of the Democratic Party of Korea reportedly stated that if appointed Minister of Justice, he would review the conditions for the dissolution of the People Power Party. Attorney Hwang Sung-wook viewed this statement as a hardline strategy to defend against numerous allegations related to Representative Kim.
Regarding the constitutional requirements for party dissolution, Attorney Hwang Sung-wook questioned whether the People Power Party has ever denied liberal democracy. The Constitutional Court functions to protect democracy by dissolving political parties, but Hwang argued that the People Power Party has not pursued totalitarianism or denied the market economy. Hwang emphasized that mentioning party dissolution merely because of political disfavor could undermine the essence of the system.
Attorney Hwang Sung-wook suggested that Representative Kim Seung-won's remark about 'reviewing the dissolution of the People Power Party' might be a political defense mechanism against various allegations he is involved in. Hwang stated that such strong remarks could be an attempt to rally Democratic Party supporters and shift the narrative to neutralize investigations against him. He interpreted it as a signal like, "Protect me because I will dissolve the rebellious People Power Party." This appears to be an attempt to form favorable public opinion during ongoing judicial investigations.
Attorney Hwang Sung-wook pointed out that Chairman Lee Jae-myung's crisis response differs from that of former President Moon Jae-in. The Moon Jae-in administration had the luxury of seeking re-election, while Chairman Lee Jae-myung lacks the leeway to consider the reality of power due to his own investigations. Hwang claimed that Chairman Lee Jae-myung's side might attempt to escape judicial risks, such as quashing indictments, through a Minister of Justice nominee. This suggests that an individual's judicial crisis is influencing the entire party's political strategy.
Attorney Hwang Sung-wook explained that re-examining facts in a remand trial is legally contradictory. The Supreme Court is an institution that ascertains facts and issues legal judgments only, and a remand trial is a procedure to correct legal errors in the original ruling, not to re-adjudicate facts. Hwang asserted that despite his long experience as a lawyer, he has never seen a case where facts were re-examined in a remand trial. This is a clear refutation by a legal expert regarding the possibility of fact re-examination being mentioned in a specific remand trial.
Attorney Hwang Sung-wook criticized the president's rejection of Supreme Court justice nominees as 'cherry-picking,' arguing that it infringes upon the Chief Justice's right to re-nominate. He stated that the president exercising the right of re-nomination in a way that allows certain candidates but not others renders that authority meaningless. Hwang pointed out that the current situation, where Supreme Court justice nominees proceed with hearings without resignation or protest, shows a loss of authority and independence in the judicial community. This reality leads to criticism that the judiciary is failing to fulfill its role and succumbing to political pressure.
Attorney Hwang Sung-wook suggested that Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's most realistic response in the current situation is likely 'no response.' Recomposing the recommendation committee or re-recommending rejected candidate Sohn Bong-ki could be a strong move that would escalate conflict with the Democratic Party. Hwang also noted that acknowledging the president's rejection and re-recommending is not an easy choice for the Chief Justice due to potential unconstitutionality. He expressed the view that with the president's rejection being the cause, silently enduring the Democratic Party's political offensive would be the most rational choice for the Chief Justice.
Attorney Hwang Sung-wook emphasized that the president does not constitutionally possess the authority to reject Supreme Court justice nominees. Therefore, he argued that acknowledging the president's rejection and re-forming the Supreme Court Justice Recommendation Committee itself could set an unconstitutional precedent. Hwang pointed out that the president exercising powers not explicitly stated in the Constitution could cause disorder in the constitutional order.
Attorney Hwang Sung-wook viewed Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's stance of considering the president's rejection of the Supreme Court justice nominee as unconstitutional and not recognizing its effect as a more constitutional response. He argued that maintaining the current state until a re-request from the Blue House aligns with constitutional procedure. This indicates a position that the Chief Justice should respond on principle to the president's exercise of power not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Attorney Hwang Sung-wook strongly criticized members of the Supreme Court for being trapped in factional logic and remaining silent in every political case. He argued that judges tend to judge issues based on their likes or dislikes of Chairman Lee Jae-myung or their views on the Democratic Party, and that they should speak clearly with legal reasoning. He emphasized that only when the Supreme Court publicizes legal legitimacy can the public be prevented from being biased by factional logic. This points out that the judiciary should not be swayed by political arguments but should judge according to law and principle.
Attorney Hwang Sung-wook explained that despite critical views from the left wing, calling the deployment to the Strait of Hormuz 'America's lackey,' it is actually a crucial decision for South Korea's national interest. A significant portion of crude oil imported into South Korea is transported through the Strait of Hormuz, making the stability of this strait directly linked to the national economy. Hwang emphasized that it is an area where the Korean Navy must protect its interests independently, and even if the United States does not request deployment, Korea should act on its own. This argues for active participation in international cooperation for national security and economy.
Attorney Hwang Sung-wook diagnosed Chairman Lee Jae-myung's current situation of declining approval ratings as 'all remedies are ineffective.' He believed that for Chairman Lee Jae-myung to recover approval ratings through a public address, substantive measures such as withdrawing personnel issues or clearly stating his position on the Strait of Hormuz deployment would be necessary. However, Hwang predicted that Chairman Lee Jae-myung would reiterate his existing positions on political issues like quashing indictments and re-election, and that without a genuine change in attitude, it would be difficult to overcome the approval rating decline. This analysis suggests that a public address must lead to concrete actions, not just formal declarations, to be effective.
Answers come from the transcript, with the exact spot cited.
Want the next one from this channel too?
When 펜앤마이크TV publishes, we'll write it up like the one you just read and email it to you.
{channel} published 83 in the last 7 days.
We skip Shorts. You can unfollow any time.
