(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Lee Bae-eum and Mi-ryeong Lee = The Supreme Court will proceed with disciplinary proceedings against Chief Judge Ji Gwi-yeon of the Seoul Northern District Court, who was sent to trial on suspicion of serving alcohol.
When Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min called for disciplinary action against Chief Judge Ji during the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's audit of the Supreme Court's administration on the 6th, Supreme Court Ethics Inspector Choi Jin-soo said, "I understand that the disciplinary committee process will already be underway."
Auditor Choi said that Chief Judge Ji's two occasions of serving alcohol were included in the disciplinary action.
Ruling party lawmakers criticized the court for denying four warrants requested by the High-ranking Public Officials Crime Investigation Office during its investigation of Chief Judge Ji, calling it a cover-up.
Director of the National Court Administration (Supreme Court Justice) Noh Kyung-pil responded to these comments by asking, ‘Do you want the National Court Administration to be involved in the trial?’
Chairman Seo Young-kyo of the Judiciary Committee said, ‘Isn’t it fundamental that we should act more abstractly toward our own judges rather than participating in trials?’
Director Roh emphasized that “the National Court Administration cannot intervene in individual cases,” and that “of course the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court cannot intervene in individual cases.”
In August 2023, Chief Judge Ji was handed over to trial on charges of having two lawyers pay for alcohol worth 4.09 million won at a reservation-only bar in Cheongdam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.
However, the Corruption Investigation Office confirmed that five people, including Chief Judge Ji, spent about 4.16 million won worth of alcohol at the same bar in September 2024, but the entertainment amount per person was less than 1 million won and it was difficult to recognize job-relatedness, so it decided not to indict in this case.
Director Roh also refuted the criticism that the manual for support and response to professional lawsuits prepared by the National Court Administration following the enforcement of the law distortion law in March of this year “makes lawsuits against judges difficult.”
The manual states that if a judge is listed in the defendant's address box, it can be classified as an 'unfair lawsuit' and that the presiding judge can review the 'order to provide collateral for litigation costs' after the case is assigned.
This means providing in advance the money or collateral that will be owed if you lose the lawsuit.
In response to Rep. Kim Ki-pyo of the Democratic Party who said, "Isn't this a declaration that there should be no lawsuits against us (judges) at all?", Director Roh said, "It's an excessive speculation," and "You've overinterpreted it," adding, "If it's a lawsuit that is obvious to anyone, that's what happens, and the court makes its own decision."
Rep. Kim Ki-pyo again raised suspicions that Chief Justice Cho intentionally inflated the number of attendees and lowered the per-person price while using meals as business expenses.
The Supreme Court has explained that the numbers were entered incorrectly by a working-level person, and when Chief Justice Roh was asked on this day, 'Didn't the Chief Justice know everything?', he said, 'The Chief Justice is not that idle.'
When asked whether the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ever got angry or severely reprimanded him, he replied, 'He never reprimanded me. He replied, “I’m not a person who gets angry by nature.”
There was also criticism of the so-called 'at-home warrant', in which judges use a remote system to issue warrants at home.
Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Han-gyu said, 'Judges register on a remote system, look at the records, and issue warrants. 'Not only is it a home, but as long as you have a computer, it can be a resort, a restaurant, or a bar,' he said.
Director Noh said he did not know specifically about the scale of stay-at-home warrants issued, and said, “We are reviewing it overall and determining it to be inappropriate.”
