"The Constitution of Justice and Peace …" Supreme Court Oversight Statement :: News

"Attacks on the independence of justice … concerns about the random and equitable nature of dividends"
"Unconstitutional controversy is expected, judges will not agree with a special court"
"The special court is concerned … the court can solve the problem itself"

The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitutional Court had no grounds of constitutional right and could undermine the independence of the judiciary. Submitted to the National Assembly.

According to the Supreme Court and Yoon Han-hong, a member of the Free Korean National Assembly, the judicial committee of the National Assembly received a statement from the Supreme Court the day before: "Review of the Criminal Procedure Law special report on the trial of a farmer judge

The legislation was initiated by lawmakers such as Park Jang-min and the Democratic Party on August 14, and by a special judge appointed to appoint a judge to issue a warrant for trial involving justice, including allegations of trial, .

First, the Supreme Court has stated in a written statement that the Supreme Court judges in charge of the special warrant and the Special Court itself are not exceptional courts that are prohibited by the Constitution, but that the Special Court needs to be examined at that moment said: "The Constitution is unfounded."

The Supreme Court declared that "the judge and the special court responsible for the bill are not subject to the law" and that "the participation of the National Assembly and the Korean Bar in the distribution of a case given may be considered a violation of the independence of the judiciary ". .

"This is contrary to the randomness of the distribution of events and may lead to further criticism of the fairness of the trial," he said. "It may be criticized that derogating from the constitution of a court for a crime suspect undermines the courts' equality."

The Supreme Court also suggested that if a special court was formed, there was a strong likelihood that the trial would be blocked without constant controversy and that it would be difficult to seek the cooperation of the former and current judges.

The Supreme Court stressed that "defendants can not cooperate in the judicial process because of the unconstitutionality of the composition of the judiciary" and that the procedure may not proceed smoothly, for example:.

"Many judges will probably not accept the appointment of a judge with a special warrant or special tribunal, so the appointment process may not proceed without clashes, "he said. "If the bill is precedent, it can be."

"The courts can solve the problem themselves by changing the division of the office and rehabilitating the case according to the statutes of different jurisdictions," he said. "The objective of the legislation is fully achieved by the internal procedures of the court."

In addition, the Supreme Court also issued negative opinions on the scope of the cases to be considered by the Special Court, the categories of judges to exclude from related hearings and the length of the execution.

If the case is heard by the court farmers and the additional case is tried by the special court, the subject may be too broad and the scope should be limited.

With regard to the exclusion of judges, there could be a problem of fairness between the claims of the judicial operators and other incidents, "he said. In some cases, the constitution itself may not be able to be constituted by the Supreme Court. "

In addition, he said: "Currently, the Supreme Court judge appointed by the former president of the Supreme Court of Justice is composed of eight people, more than a third of the total," he said. .

In addition, "the need for a trial with public participation may lead to management and equity difficulties," added: "It may be impossible to limit the sentence within three months because of the difficulty of the case. "

[email protected]