Probe into 'judiciary abuse' underway

By Lee Kyung-min

The prosecution will investigate “abuse by the judiciary” after Supreme Court Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su said he would cooperate with prosecutors, Monday. This is considered the best compromise due to the extremely polarized opinion among about 3,000 age- and rank-divided judges nationwide. The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office said that it will undertake the investigation and plans to confiscate necessary materials and question the people involved soon.

The high-profile, unprecedented scandal that has rattled the country over the past few weeks concerns an allegation that the Supreme Court under the leadership of Yang Sung-tae, Kim's predecessor, drafted documents on ways to deliver verdicts on politically sensitive trials in exchange for the establishment of what would have been a de facto “Second Supreme Court” under the Park Geun-hye administration.

The top initiative spearheaded by Yang sought to help lower the workload of top court justices and help many senior judges nearing retirement retain their prestigious high-ranking public posts longer. The documents were written by a dozen officials at the Office of Court Administration (OCA), an administrative body under the top court, where only a dozen high-performing, elite judges are posted with “guaranteed” prospects of promotion. Disciplinary measures against a handful of OCA officials involved is expected after Kim referred the matter to the relevant judicial committee.

The prosecution is expected to focus on determining whether the court officials executed the plan as well as the degree to which it progressed. This would inevitably require questioning the officials as well as confiscation of computer hard drives in which documents in question were stored. This is necessary to compare the findings with heavily implicating materials released late last month by a special committee under the top court which conducted a third investigation.

Following the review of the passcode-locked computers, to which two earlier committees were denied access, the committee disclosed only a table of contents and small number of citations made from the documents, but the plans on specific measures to advance Yang's agenda set off a firestorm nationwide.

The third committee had access to more material than the previous committees that concluded there was “no blacklist of judges,” nor were there efforts to suppress liberal voices within the judiciary for criticizing the “emperor-like” power exercised by the chief justice. These conclusions triggered massive public outrage as they clearly stood at odds with the volumes of evidence that suggested otherwise. Top OCA officials were not subject to questioning, and only replied to written questions either through email or mail. Yang refused to be questioned twice.

The prosecution investigation is considered the best compromise for Kim whose leadership has been put to the test amid increasing pressure to clearly disavow past wrongdoings as part of his pledge toward long overdue judicial reform. The group of senior judges clearly opposed any further investigation _ much less the prosecution's involvement _ out of concern that it could set a “bad precedent” in which investigative officials intervene in judicial proceedings, which could heavily undermine judicial authority.

However, liberal judges deemed it a “necessary evil” to completely sever ties from the past. They urged a thorough investigation as well as harsh punishment for the figures involved, and recommended a criminal investigation or a further internal audit into the allegations be conducted for “due accountability," amid prevalent public distrust coupled with a shared sense of outrage.