As the High-ranking Public Officials Crime Investigation Office handed over Chief Judge Ji Gwi-yeon (52, 31st class of the Judicial Research and Training Institute), who had been suspected of hosting a drinking party, to trial on the 4th, attention is being paid to whether the Supreme Court will immediately begin disciplinary proceedings.
The results of the Corruption Investigation Investigation Office's investigation largely contradict the explanation provided by the Supreme Court's Ethics Audit Office in September of last year and Chief Judge Ji Gwi-yeon's explanation, so a tense legal battle is expected over the exact facts and application of legal principles.
Suspicions surrounding Chief Judge Ji began on May 14 last year when the Democratic Party of Korea raised the claim that Chief Judge Ji had received entertainment from people related to his duties at entertainment bars on several occasions.
As the controversy spread, the Supreme Court Ethics Audit Office announced two days later on the 16th, "We are verifying the facts," and added, "If specific facts of misconduct are confirmed, we will proceed with procedures in accordance with relevant laws."
Before starting the trial on the 19th of the same month in the case of former President Yoon Seok-yeol and other alleged leaders of the rebellion, Chief Judge Ji issued an explanation, saying, "The allegations raised are not true."
Chief Judge Ji said, "I've never thought about going to a place like that and being entertained," and added, "More than anything, that's not the era. No one buys pork belly and soju or beer."
Afterwards, the Ethics Audit Office said, "There is insufficient proof of the suspicion," but postponed the announcement of the results of the investigation, considering that Chief Judge Ji was reported to the Corruption Investigation Office and is being investigated.
As criticism continued centering on the ruling party for 'covering the family', the Supreme Court eventually referred it to the court audit committee composed of external members to continue the investigation.
However, the Ethics Audit Office ultimately stated on September 30 of last year, “It is difficult to acknowledge job-relatedness based on the facts confirmed to date.”
The court audit committee accepted the results of the investigation, but waited for the results of the investigation by the Corruption Investigation Office and announced the results of deliberation, saying that if any misconduct is revealed in the future, it should be dealt with strictly.
According to the conclusion of the Ethics Audit Office at the time, Chief Judge Ji met with lawyers A and B on August 9, 2023, had dinner and drinks at a raw fish restaurant, and paid 155,000 won for the first meal himself.
At the time, the Ethics Audit Office determined that the cost of the second bar was 1.7 million won, which was paid by Attorney A.
This is contrary to the results of the investigation by the Corruption Investigation Office.
The Corruption Investigation Office announced that the price of alcohol at the second bar in Cheongdam-dong was worth 4.09 million won.
Also, the Ethics Audit Office at the time explained that Chief Judge Ji woke up shortly after drinking one or two drinks, but on this day, the Corruption Investigation Office stated that he stayed at the bar for about 4 to 5 hours.
However, the Corruption Investigation Office also did not apply bribery charges, saying there was no quid pro quo in relation to paying for the alcohol.
In the end, it appears that the issues in the trial will be how much the total price of alcohol was actually paid, how long Chief Judge Ji stayed at the bar, and how much the alcohol he drank will be calculated accordingly.
An issue is whether the Anti-Graft Act can be applied by considering the two lawyers' separate calculations as having received money or valuables from the 'same person'.
The Anti-Corruption Act stipulates that if a public official receives money or entertainment exceeding 1 million won at a time from the same person, he or she will be punished, regardless of job-relatedness or compensation.
As Chief Judge Ji Gwi-yeon is eventually handed over to trial, it is of interest whether the Supreme Court will take disciplinary action based on the results of the Corruption Investigation Office's investigation.
Under the Judicial Disciplinary Act, disciplinary action against judges is divided into suspension, pay reduction, and reprimand.
Reasons for disciplinary action include violating official duties, neglecting duties, damaging dignity, or lowering the prestige of the court.
In past cases, when the facts were relatively clear, there were cases where disciplinary action was taken even before the results of the investigation were released.
Chief Judge A was suspected of receiving golf clubs that were later revealed to be 'counterfeit' from a businessman, and in June 2021, he was disciplined by the disciplinary committee with a three-month pay cut for violating the duty to maintain dignity.
At the time, an investigation was conducted into Chief Judge A, and the prosecution handed him over to trial only in January of the following year.
However, he was confirmed not guilty by the Supreme Court in December 2024.
On the other hand, there are cases where disciplinary action was taken after the results of the investigative agency, such as summary indictment, were released.
Suwon District Court Chief Judge Kim In-taek was summarily indicted on charges of violating the Anti-Graft Act in February of this year on suspicion of receiving golf trip expenses paid by an acquaintance who was on trial, and a month later received a summary order of a fine of 5 million won from the court.
Last month, about five months later, the Supreme Court suspended Chief Judge Kim for three months.
In cases where there are conflicting claims, as in the case of Chief Judge Ji, the disciplinary committee may reach a conclusion after waiting for the results of the criminal trial.
The Judicial Organization Act stipulates that ‘if a complaint is filed regarding the grounds for disciplinary action, the disciplinary process may be suspended until the process is completed.’
A chief judge of the metropolitan area court said, “Didn’t the Ethics Audit Office already come to a conclusion (different from that of the Corruption Investigation Office)?” and predicted, “As the positions are sharply divided, I think we will wait to see how the facts are determined to some extent as a result of the first trial criminal ruling before making a conclusion.”
