By Lee Kyung-min
A scandal-ridden administrative body under the Supreme Court is coming under great pressure to cooperate with prosecutors over “abuse by the judiciary.” The high-profile scandal that rattled Korea over the past few weeks concerns an allegation that the top court under the leadership of former chief justice Yang Sung-tae drafted documents on delivering “friendly verdicts” on politically sensitive trials to the previous Park Geun-hye administration in exchange for the establishment of what would have been a de facto “Second Supreme Court.” The Office of Court Administration (OCA) also allegedly discussed measures to suppress liberal, critical voices within the judiciary by creating and managing a so-called “blacklist of judges.”
The OCA under the top court is expected to determine when and how to comply with a request from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, which asked OCA officials last week that they submit what it believes are “heavily implicating” relevant materials secured from three previous internal investigations. The OCA is unlikely to remain “lukewarm” much longer given chief justice Kim Myeong-su, Yang's successor, earlier announced that he would cooperate with the prosecution investigation. This compromise came amid extremely polarized opinions among about 3,000 age- and rank-divided judges nationwide. Senior judges fiercely protested prosecution involvement fearing it would set a “bad precedent,” irreversibly undercutting judicial authority. The stance was criticized just as fiercely by a liberal group of judges that argue “lost” public trust in the judiciary would not be restored unless Kim clearly disavows past wrongdoings.
The prosecution asked the OCA to hand over eight computer hard drives used by four key officials there including Lim Chong-heon, the then-second-in-command at the office as well as Yang. They also asked for documents with detailed accounts of OCA officials being questioned over their respective suspected involvement in drafting and executing Yang's plan. He categorically denied doing this. The preserved documents contain statements from 49 court officials including Lim, the former OCA head, former top court justices and non-ranking members who came up with specific ways to advance the establishment of the new court. Seizing such documents, prosecutors believe, will largely uncover the command hierarchy, thereby enabling effective accountability of figures involved, including Yang. This reflects concerns that many judges upon questioning are highly unlikely to make statements against their superiors, a common “practice” within the most conservative organization.
Prosecutors could resort to a forcible search of the office if the submitted materials are insufficient. Given the sensitive nature of the files unrelated to the scandal containing top court administrative affairs in general, prosecutors are considering going through them with OCA officials present. A review of the computers in question is deemed highly necessary, as earlier in-house investigations continued to make “absurd” conclusions despite volumes of evidence that suggested otherwise. Former top court justice Lee In-bok, a highly regarded senior member of the judiciary best characterized by his impartiality, fairness and disinterest in politics, concluded the first investigation saying there was “no blacklist of judges.” No efforts were then made by the administrative office to punish what it deemed “anti-conformist, liberal” voices. Most judges found it questionable, especially because Lee was unable to examine the computer hard drive where a pass-code locked list was allegedly stored. The OCA at the time refused Lee's request to go over the files in the computer, saying no documents were to be reviewed by individuals other than those who wrote them citing security protocols.