Until when is "the judicialization of politics" and "the politicization of justice"?

■ Host: Anchor Yoon Bori, Anchor Baek Jong-gyu
■ Starring: Professor Jang Young-soo, Graduate School of Law at Korea University

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN Newswide] when quoting.

[Anchor]
There is a sense of war between the chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection and the prosecutor's impeachment. In addition, the Democratic Party of Korea plans to vote on the impeachment of Choi Hae-sa, the chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and three prosecutors this week. The ruling party is protesting, calling it a retaliatory impeachment.With Jang Young-soo, a professor at Korea University's law school, we point out the repeated "judicialization of politics" and "politicization of justice." How are you?

The opposition party plans to hold a plenary session of the National Assembly tomorrow to report the impeachment motion of three prosecutors, including auditor Choi Sang-sa and Seoul District Prosecutors' Office chief Lee Chang-soo, and put it to a vote on the 4th. In particular, it is the first time in the constitutional history that the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection, an independent constitutional institution, has pushed for impeachment. What can we see as the reason?

[Jang Young-soo]
First of all, what is officially said as the reason for the impeachment was a poor audit in connection with the relocation of the presidential office. Most of them say that they perjured the National Assembly by saying that there is no problem with it, but in fact, it is a little insufficient to see it alone. In the end, there seem to be quite a few analyses in the legal profession that the conflicts between the ruling and opposition parties in recent years, especially the power struggle over representative Lee Jae-myung's court ruling, have affected the whole thing.

[Anchor]
I'm the person involved in this, and there was a comment made by Choi Hae-soo, the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection. Let's continue the conversation after listening to the recording. Choi Hae-sa, chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection, said that it undermines the basis of the constitutional order. However, the opposition party says that impeachment is the unique authority of the National Assembly. In a way, it seems that the interpretation of the same issue is conflicting.

[Jang Young-soo]
Where the core of the problem is, it is clear that the National Assembly has the power to prosecute the impeachment, and the auditor is subject to the impeachment. However, this is not to say that there is no limit to exercising it because it is a unique authority, although it is said that it is the core part and the National Assembly has its own authority. In that part, the unique authority is not a sufficient argument, and whether the legal requirements for impeachment are actually met is expected to be the core of the problem.

[Anchor]
Does the professor then see the requirements for impeachment?

[Jang Young-soo]
We need to check more specific facts, but it doesn't seem enough at the moment. Because there are three requirements for impeachment in Article 65 (1) of the Constitution. One should be related to the execution of duties, the second should be against the Constitution or the law, and the third should be added through the interpretation of the Constitutional Court rather than an inscription, but such unconstitutional illegality, or illegality, should be serious enough to dismiss the person subject to impeachment, these three. The point is yes.

In that case, it is clear that what is in question now is related to the execution of duties, and when the unconstitutionality or illegality is questioned, is this unconstitutional or illegal part not clear at the moment, and even if it is recognized, is it a serious matter enough to dismiss the auditor? If that were the case, how many of the past auditors would have survived? This is the most controversial part right now.

[Anchor]
Choi Sang-sa, the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection, is not the only opposition party seeking impeachment. Now, the opposition party is preparing for the impeachment process of three prosecutors, including Lee Chang-soo, head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. This is because Mrs. Kim Gun-hee was cleared of allegations of manipulation of Deutsche Motors' stock price. What do you think about this issue?

[Jang Young-soo]
Aside from whether the acquittal is justifiable or not. Because there are a lot of disagreements about that. However, the problem is that under the Criminal Procedure Act, prosecutors are allowed to have discretion over whether to prosecute or not. The fact that discretion is recognized means that it is not illegal to clear the court. So, on what basis is it illegal in this case rather than in the case of the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection? If you don't like it, is it illegal? This is the point where criticism comes out. In this regard, I see that the prosecution requirements have not been met much more clearly than in the case of the auditor.

[Anchor]
However, some say that the three prosecutors preparing for the impeachment proceedings are retaliatory impeachment in that they were prosecutors who led the investigation of the Democratic Party or representative Lee Jae-myung. How do you see this part?

[Jang Young-soo]
It's not the first time this has been said. In the past, when four prosecutors, including Kang Vaccine Prosecutor, were filed for impeachment, there was a lot of talk about this, and then Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok strongly opposed it. However, the problem is that even the media and the public have a problem with this, so the judiciary committee's investigation is underway for a long time without voting after filing an impeachment motion right away. This means that in the end, it was burdensome for the Democratic Party to talk about retaliatory impeachment. And how is this prosecutor impeachment compared to this past prosecutor impeachment? There's one thing that's slightly different when you do it like this.

The reason is that at that time, this person had personal corruption because of this and that person because of that, but after tying them up, they were all prosecutors who investigated the Democratic Party's money envelope case. In the end, there were a lot of suspicions and criticisms about personal corruption, but this time, it was all tied up and Kim Gun-hee was not prosecuted, so I can say that I didn't tie up personal corruption. Nevertheless, why are the prosecutors who investigated Lee Jae-myung or the Democratic Party of Korea? Even if these suspicions are not so strong as before, they still seem to be a structure that has no choice but to come out.

[Anchor]
The Board of Audit and Inspection will hold an emergency briefing tomorrow as the opposition party pushes for the impeachment of Choi Hae-soo, the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection. If the Democratic Party votes on impeachment, what response card can the prosecution come up with?

[Jang Young-soo]
Now, whether it is the Board of Audit and Inspection or the prosecution, if the impeachment is passed by the plenary session and voted on, what can be done next is very limited. Eventually, those in question will be suspended from their duties. Regarding this suspension of duty, there are two major things that currently belong. One is to ask the Constitutional Court to make a decision as soon as possible. However, since these predictions dominate, what has recently been said is that if it is clear that it does not meet the prosecution requirements, such as the dismissal of prosecution under the Criminal Procedure Act, it will be possible to pursue a plan to dismiss it by a simple procedure without delaying the time. And the other is to apply for an injunction for suspension of duty and exclude the suspension of duty, so to speak, the exclusion of suspension of duty or the provisional injunction of suspension of execution. This is going to be a little controversial, because there is no precedent. However, legally, I don't know how the Constitutional Court will judge it, but there are some possibilities.

[Anchor]
Now, prosecutors are collectively protesting against this. The Democratic Party forewarned legal action against this. Let's listen to the related recording. The prosecution's collective opposition is a violation of the duty of neutrality of public officials, what do you think?

[Jang Young-soo]
It's a little different from the neutral duty right now. I talked about collective action, but this collective action, as you said, Article 65 of the National Public Officials Act, seems to be problematic in two aspects. On the other hand, if it is an unconstitutional act, it should be judged by the Constitutional Court again, but if pressuring the prosecution in this way is rather unconstitutional, isn't it a problem to remain silent about it? There have been many cases in which silence has been judged to be sympathetic or assisting with such unconstitutional acts, so these parts have been questioned. Second, the prohibition of collective action in Article 66 of the National Public Officials Act is a regulation that says that public officials should not engage in collective action for work other than the labor movement or other official duties. If so, the primary question will be whether this is outside of official duties. On the other hand, all that has been a problem with collective action so far is assembly and demonstration. Can we punish them for collective action just by expressing their opinions without rallies or protests? That will also be a problem.

[Anchor]
Then anyway, the opposition party plans to finish voting on the impeachment motion as planned. The ball goes to the Constitutional Court. What are the criteria for judging impeachment in the trial process, the criteria for judging unconstitutionality, and these?

[Jang Young-soo]
As I said earlier, according to the Constitution and Constitutional Court precedents, the first should be related to the execution of duties, the second should be unconstitutional, illegal, and illegal, not asking for any political responsibility, but this is only legal responsibility through judicial judgment. Third, such illegality should be serious enough to dismiss the subject. For example, there may be violations of traffic laws or misdemeanor punishment laws, but isn't it too much to dismiss them with that? That's what I'm talking about. In the end, the most often said is that the illegality in question should not have this, and that it does not meet the requirements for impeachment, even if this is true, would it be appropriate to dismiss it with this?

[Anchor]
I don't know what judgment the Constitutional Court will make if this proposal goes to the Constitutional Court, but these days, when a ruling is made by the court, the reaction to politics is extremely divided. Is this me on the other side? This is the country. There are also extreme reactions such as the death of the judiciary, judicial murder, and so on. Why is this happening?

[Jang Young-soo]
It can be seen in three main ways. First, there is one part where the political camp is influenced by extreme confrontation between each other without dialogue or compromise. Second, judicial distrust. If the people absolutely trust the judiciary, these things will not come out. Recently, however, judicial distrust has intensified compared to the past, and thirdly, some camp logic and camp conflicts among the people are growing, especially among the strong supporters of the two camps. This is a part of concern. Anyway, I see these three as basic causes.

[Anchor]
The extreme confrontation in politics, distrust in justice, and conflict in the camp of the people are three things. The so-called judicialization of politics, in which the big trend of Korean politics turns into judicial decisions, is also causing conflict. The tendency of the judge in charge of the trial has been questioned, and are these phenomena only occurring in Korea?

[Jang Young-soo]
I'm afraid not. For example, it is rather difficult for any country to have these conflicts when it comes to the impeachment of the president. And I've seen that through various trials and things like that involving President Trump last time. However, in our case, it is much more serious than in developed countries in the West. Not only do these problems often occur, but we have more distrust of the judiciary, so these problems are becoming more prominent.

[Anchor]
Then, shouldn't we secure some judicial justice in the judicial distrust you mentioned?

[Jang Young-soo]
That's right. In order to do that, we need to look at the exact cause of distrust. We have to figure out how to eliminate the causes. So far, the biggest cause of distrust has been the judicialization of politics, which is another reaction to the politicization of justice. Because the important issue goes to the judiciary, the pressure on the judiciary in politics increases. This is the decision we want. As we put tangible and intangible pressure on it, there is a part where the judiciary is swept away, and secondly, I know all about the judicial distrust I mentioned earlier, such as the old Jo Bong-am case or the Inhyeokdang case, right? After democratization, a lot of these things, called representative judicial killings, disappeared.

And those things were acquitted through a retrial. Nevertheless, judicial distrust has grown much greater recently after allegations of judicial manipulation erupted. This is a political problem, but the judiciary itself should have shown this problem through reform, but it has not shown it properly yet. I think this is something the judiciary has to work on itself.

[Anchor]
I think both the judicialization of politics and the politicization of justice are applicable. The opposition party has proposed the 11th impeachment less than half a year after the 22nd National Assembly opened with the number of seats, and the president is confronting it with the right to demand reconsideration and veto it. From the people's point of view, these phenomena are repeating too much. It's coming to a situation where I feel tired. What do you think about this phenomenon?

[Jang Young-soo]
Aren't we using the word "dodol-pyo"? In particular, impeachment is impeachment, but in the case of the special prosecution law, if we continue to create and veto it, and keep walking back and forth like this, we can't do what we have to do and just spend time on the wrong things. Both ruling and opposition parties know that this is how the people feel right now. But knowingly, there is no change in attitude, I think this is the biggest problem. Rather, in this situation, if the people say that we will change it first because this is what the people want, whether it is the ruling party or the opposition party, wouldn't the people support you much more? But I don't think it's a right democracy to have an existing insistence on these issues, rather than covering them up and responding sensitively to the needs of the people. Efforts should be made to win public sympathy.

[Anchor]
In a situation where legislative power and veto power continue to conflict like this, we need to find a point of contact. What can we do about it?

[Jang Young-soo]
In the end, there is no dialogue and compromise, so isn't this what happens? In the case of Democratic Party Chairman Lee Jae-myung, for example, after the acquittal on the 25th, he said, "Let's not kill each other like this, let's save each other, let's do politics." However, there has not been much real change. Even with that as an opportunity, there are serious talks and compromises between the ruling and opposition parties, and if both the ruling and opposition parties make concessions, they think they will lose, but in the eyes of the people, it is necessary to reverse the thinking that they can think that they can make concessions and that they can be trusted.

[Anchor]
So far, we have talked about the repeated judicialization of politics and the politicization of justice with Jang Young-soo, a professor of law at Korea University. Thank you for talking today.