Is Lee Jae-myung's Refusal to Appoint Supreme Court Justices an Impeachable Offense?

Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu pointed out that out of the two Supreme Court justice nominees, Sohn Bong-gi and Kim Sung-soo, proposed by Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, Leader Lee Jae-myung rejected Sohn Bong-gi, who is from the Yeongnam region, and proceeded only with the appointment of Kim Sung-soo, who is from the Honam region. He emphasized that there is no legal basis for the President to reject the Chief Justice's nomination and argued that this violates the constitutional procedure for appointing Supreme Court justices.

Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu explained that there was only one instance of a president rejecting a Supreme Court justice nomination, which occurred during the time of the first President Syngman Rhee. He added that after the 1962 constitutional amendment, it was explicitly stipulated that the President could not reject the Chief Justice's recommendation for Supreme Court justices, and under the current constitutional structure, the President must appoint the candidate recommended by the Chief Justice.

However, lawyer Kang Dae-gyu refuted this, stating that prior to 1987, there was no custom of the President and Chief Justice directly meeting for nominations, and demanding a direct face-to-face nomination in the modern electronic litigation system is an anachronism.

Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu pointed out that both nominees, Sohn Bong-gi and Kim Sung-soo, were recommended through the same procedure, yet only Kim Sung-soo was approved while Sohn Bong-gi was rejected, which violates the principle of fairness. He criticized this as an unacceptable excuse, stating that fairness is one of the most crucial elements in legal matters, and in light of Article 12 of the Constitution's principle of equality, which requires similar judgment for similar matters, this decision is difficult to comprehend.

He emphasized that this situation is seen as a serious matter that undermines the spirit of the Constitution, going beyond a simple personnel issue.

At the time, the Constitutional Court ruled the refusal as a 'violation of a specific constitutional duty to act.' Lawyer Kang argued that Leader Lee Jae-myung's refusal to nominate a Supreme Court justice also carries the same risk of illegality and is an act of abandoning a duty that should have been fulfilled in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution.

Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu reminded that Article 104 of the Constitution states, 'Supreme Court justices shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and with the consent of the National Assembly.' He explained that legal analysis using AI confirmed that the President's refusal of the Chief Justice's nomination is an act exceeding the scope of constitutional authority, emphasizing that this disregards the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu noted that while nominee Kim Sung-soo (from Honam) proceeded with the appointment, only nominee Sohn Bong-gi (from Yeongnam) was rejected. He pointed out the possibility that such selective rejection could be an intentional move to influence the ongoing trial of Leader Lee Jae-myung. This claim could lead to criticism that it is an attempt to undermine judicial independence.

Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu stated that the Supreme Court Justice Recommendation Committee operates based on legal grounds, and the list of members and meeting dates are transparently disclosed. He mentioned that while the committee recommends candidates considering regional balance, interpretations suggest that the Presidential Office's reason for rejecting the appointment is not a regional issue but rather for the purpose of defending Leader Lee Jae-myung's judicial risks.

He expressed concerns that such attempts could infringe upon judicial independence and exacerbate confusion.

He pointed out that these actions are aimed at avoiding imprisonment and contain an intention to influence trial outcomes.

He stated that the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that if a law is amended or abolished due to retrospective consideration, exemption from prosecution is possible. He argued that this could be interpreted as an intention to evade trial outcomes through legal amendment, similar to the past case of the abolition of the crime of adultery.

He emphasized the seriousness of the judicial system's damage, which he directly experiences as a lawyer in the field, and pointed out that the Democratic Party's legislative strategy is shaking the foundation of the judicial order.

He interpreted the Grand National Party's reflection strategy during former Party Leader Park Geun-hye's era and recent actions by Representative Kim Min-seok, among others, as signs of this 'distancing'.

He emphasized that the President's presentation of credentials is a basic diplomatic courtesy of a head of state and expressed concern that this lack of fundamental understanding in state governance could lead to a diplomatic vacuum.

He raised criticism that Leader Lee Jae-myung's political career has been confined to a close-knit political circle centered on Seongnam City, and he lacks experience in state governance encompassing the entire nation.

Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu analyzed that negative indicators have occurred whenever Leader Lee Jae-myung intervened in specific areas such as real estate policy or the establishment of a national security academy. He presented an ironic analysis that doing nothing is rather the secret to maintaining Leader Lee Jae-myung's approval rating, adding that his style of state governance seems to aim for status quo rather than active intervention.

Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu suggested that the surest way for Leader Lee Jae-myung to recover his declining approval rating is to declare, 'I will diligently attend my trials as soon as my term ends.' He emphasized that such a promise could build trust with voters and instantly boost his approval rating. However, lawyer Kang predicted that Leader Lee Jae-myung would find it difficult to make such a choice, sacrificing his party leadership re-election to accept the trials.