
It will be explained at the regular meeting on the 30th... Agenda for 'Expansion of regular meetings from 2 to 3 times'
The Trial System Subcommittee of the National Association of Judges requested the National Court Administration to explain official countermeasures in relation to the confusion over the admissibility of evidence at the trial scene due to the enforcement of Article 245-13 of the revised Criminal Procedure Act.
AI-generated summary
Article 245-13 of the revised Criminal Procedure Act limits the evidentiary capacity of data collected by prosecutors, causing confusion at the trial.
As confusion arose at the trial over a provision of the revised Criminal Procedure Act that eliminated the evidential capacity of data collected by prosecutors, the National Association of Judges' Trial System Subcommittee asked the Supreme Court to explain whether related measures were being taken.
On the 10th, the Trial System Subcommittee of the National Association of Judges posted an article on the court's internal network stating, 'We request an explanation from the National Court Administration regarding Article 245-13 of the Criminal Procedure Act.'
Article 245-13 of the Revised Criminal Procedure Act allows the prosecutor to confirm the facts by listening to the opinions of people involved in the case or receiving related materials when it is necessary to determine whether to indict or maintain the prosecution.
However, statements and materials obtained during this process cannot be used as evidence in the trial.
Previously, if a party submitted evidence to the prosecutor during a trial, the prosecutor could submit it to the court, but with the enforcement of the revised law, there was room for disputes over the admissibility of the evidence submitted in this way.
The Trial System Subcommittee explained, “Some defense attorneys actually argued that it is a violation of the Revised Criminal Procedure Act for prosecutors to submit materials received from witnesses as evidence,” and added, “There is confusion in front-line courts about how to handle when a complainant wishes to submit evidence.”
At the same time, he asked the National Court Administration, "Please explain what the legislative purpose of this regulation is, whether you are aware of the confusion in the front-line courts, and what measures you are taking to respond to it."
If there is a request for a subcommittee according to the internal regulations of the National Association of Judges, unless there are special circumstances, the chairman must submit explanatory materials or request other necessary cooperation from the person in charge of judicial administration.
Accordingly, when Kang Dong-won, chairman of the National Association of Judges, requests an explanation from the National Court Administration, an official from the National Court Administration is expected to appear at a regular meeting on the same day and provide an explanation.
Separately, the trial system subcommittee proposed an agenda related to the court system and indiscriminate submission of documents using artificial intelligence (AI). Agenda proposed by subcommittees are automatically submitted to regular meetings.
A proposal was also put forward to expand the regular meetings of the National Judges' Representative Conference, held in April and December every year, to three by holding them in September.
The day before, five people, including Judge Kang Hyeon-gu of the Seoul Bankruptcy Court, submitted a proposal to revise the internal regulations of the National Association of Judges by posting a post titled 'Three proposals for development and securing trust in the National Association of Judges.'
They also proposed to strengthen the representativeness of the members by strictly selecting the members recommended by the Judges' Representative Council to participate in the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee.
According to the internal regulations, the agenda posted by the judicial representative is submitted to the meeting if four or more other representatives agree. This agenda is scheduled to be jointly proposed by five judicial representatives and brought to the meeting.
The National Judges' Representative Conference is a meeting of representative judges elected from all levels of courts and expresses opinions and makes suggestions regarding judicial administration and judicial independence.
The regular meeting was originally scheduled to be held on the 7th of next month, but as voices grew louder within the court's internal network that the ruling party's infringement on judicial independence should be responded to, it was decided to convene a week early, on the 30th of this month.
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
A representative from the Court Administration will provide related explanation at the regular meeting on the 30th.
Very likely · Within days

On the 11th, fishermen who were abducted by North Korea visited the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and submitted an application to uncover the truth about the country's past abduction prevention and rescue measures. After their return, they urged a thorough investigation into not only state violence but also violations of the state's duty of protection at the time.

Singer Lee So-ra applied for an order to seize the copyright related rights of 45 songs, including 'The Wind Blows', against the CEO of her former agency, and received a court decision. The agency Marehim explained that this was a measure to protect the artist's legitimate rights and musical assets.

In the retrial of the late composer Isang Yoon, who was involved in the Dongbaekrim incident, the Public Prosecution Service found him guilty on some charges and requested three years in prison. The bereaved family pleaded not guilty, saying it was a case fabricated by state violence, and the sentencing hearing will be held on December 24.

BJ Gwajuk Se-yeon (real name In Se-yeon) won a partial victory in the second trial of a lawsuit claiming damages filed against cyber wrecker YouTuber Pteokga. The Seoul Central District Court upheld the first trial ruling that Bukga should pay 10 million won to Mr. In.

In the first trial of former Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung on charges of engaging in important civil war missions, the court criticized the special prosecution team's delay in reviewing records. Former President Shim's side denied all charges and cited the appeal court ruling of former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae as the basis.

The Supreme Court set the 19th as the date for the plenary session of the appellate trial in former Prime Minister Han Deok-soo's rebellion case. With the hearing being held one day before the expiration date of his detention on the 20th, the possibility of former Prime Minister Han being released on the 20th has increased. Former Prime Minister Han, who was sentenced to 23 years in prison in the first trial and 15 years in prison in the second trial, is about to expire without detention despite the special prosecutor's request for a speedy sentencing.