Police Face Dilemma as Judicial Distortion Law Takes Effect

Police find themselves in a dilemma over the newly enacted judicial distortion law. Officers now bear the burden of re-examining the legal reasoning behind decisions made by prosecutors and courts—judicial bodies that have already applied sophisticated legal interpretation. Concerns are also emerging that police themselves could face charges under the same law if they decide not to refer cases to prosecutors. Inside the police force, half-joking suggestions have surfaced about creating a dedicated "judicial distortion judgment unit."

On December 12, amendments to the Criminal Code centering on the judicial distortion offense were promulgated via the electronic official gazette and took effect immediately—just 17 days after the National Assembly passed the bill on November 26. The offense is codified in Article 123-2 of the Criminal Code. The provision states: "When a judge involved in a criminal trial, a prosecutor filing or maintaining an indictment, or a person conducting criminal investigation commits any of the following acts regarding a criminal case under trial or investigation with the intent to unlawfully or improperly benefit another person or harm their rights, the offender shall be punished by imprisonment for up to 10 years and suspension of qualifications for up to 10 years."

The problem lies in the ambiguous criteria for determining what constitutes "distortion of the law." The offense targets those who "knowingly apply a law despite knowing its requirements are not met, or knowingly fail to apply a law that should be applied, thereby intentionally affecting the outcome of a trial or investigation." However, critics point out that proving intentional distortion of the law during actual investigations and trials is far from straightforward.

Going forward, police must investigate complaints and accusations of judicial distortion that could flood in against judges. Police already undergo meticulous legal interpretation when reviewing applicable statutes during investigations. But judicial distortion cases impose an even greater burden, requiring officers to re-examine the legal reasoning behind court and prosecutorial decisions in specific cases. There are also concerns that the judicial distortion issue could be raised at virtually every stage of judgment—when cases are not referred to prosecutors, when referrals do not lead to indictments, when courts issue acquittals, or when punishments fall short of expectations. This means even minor cases could remain unresolved indefinitely, effectively extending case processing times. In politically sensitive cases in particular, there are concerns that defendants facing likely conviction could repeatedly file judicial distortion complaints against judges, prosecutors, and police as a delaying tactic.

Another concern is that police themselves could become targets of investigation. Currently, most complaints are directed at high-ranking judicial figures such as Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, stemming from the Public Official Election Act trial of President Lee Jae-myung that triggered the law's introduction. However, anxiety is spreading within the police that, over time, officers who handle cases first will also come under scrutiny. This is because police could face repeated judicial distortion complaints not only when they decide not to refer a case, but also whenever their judgments during judicial distortion investigations displease complainants or accused parties.

For this reason, police fear they will have no choice but to enforce the law passively. There is no precedent or case law on the judicial distortion offense yet, and officers risk years of investigation, disruption to their work, or personnel disadvantages such as being passed over for promotion if they interpret the law too proactively. Some analysts suggest that in politically charged cases, police are now more likely to be excessively cautious on a case-by-case basis to avoid personal repercussions, or to move in directions that could be interpreted as politically motivated.

Given this situation, voices within the police force have turned to sardonic remarks: "It's obvious we'll have to keep examining distortion, the distortion of distortion, and the distortion of that distortion—shouldn't we just create a separate organization dedicated solely to judging judicial distortion cases?" A high-ranking police official said, "Some say, 'Just enforce the law fairly,' but people will claim it wasn't fair whenever they don't get the outcome they wanted. Who would take that risk and say, 'Go ahead and report me if you want'? The result is an environment where we can only enforce the law passively."

A frontline officer at a Seoul police station added, "There were already many cases where people were dissatisfied with police, prosecutor, and judge decisions. Now, not just political cases but ordinary cases will see more judicial distortion claims raised. There are so many points within a single case where judicial distortion could be alleged—even creating a dedicated unit to investigate nothing but judicial distortion cases wouldn't be enough."