Ruling Party Raises Constitutional Concerns Over Judicial Misconduct Bill Ahead of Vote

Internal warnings about constitutional violations and potential side effects have emerged again within the Democratic Party of Korea over the proposed "judicial misconduct crime" bill. Some lawmakers have reportedly conveyed to party leadership that the bill's content should be amended before the plenary vote.

According to political sources on the 24th, Rep. Kwak Sang-eon of the Democratic Party shared concerns with fellow lawmakers about the need to supplement the criminal code amendment related to the judicial misconduct crime. While agreeing with the bill's intent, Kwak argued that the legal requirements are excessively abstract and may overly restrict judges' authority to interpret law, necessitating further deliberation. A significant number of policy committee members and other lawmakers reportedly share these concerns about the need for revisions.

The criminal code amendment to introduce the judicial misconduct crime would impose prison sentences of up to 10 years on judges or prosecutors who distort legal principles during investigation, indictment, or trial proceedings.

The most controversial provision is the criterion defining judicial misconduct as "intentionally misapplying laws or regulations (Article 1)." Rep. Kwak warned colleagues that "the judiciary would find it difficult to issue rulings that differ from previous decisions, and attempting judgments that deviate from established precedents could itself become dangerous."

He added, "Courts have developed legal principles suited to each case's circumstances to form precedents, but the introduction of the judicial misconduct crime could suppress this function and undermine the judiciary's fundamental role."

The broad scope of "laws and regulations" as the target of application was also raised as problematic. Interpretive disputes across all areas—civil, administrative, and criminal cases—could escalate into criminal punishment issues.

The vagueness of the requirements is another point of contention. The amendment defines punishable conduct as "intentionally misapplying laws to benefit or disadvantage parties" or "recognizing facts in marked violation of logic or empirical rules." Critics argue these expressions are too abstract and may violate the clarity principle required of criminal statutes. The Democratic Party's policy committee previously submitted a report noting that some provisions may violate the clarity principle and could trigger successive complaints and accusations at each stage of criminal and judicial proceedings.

Party leadership is expected to decide soon whether to amend the bill. The criminal code amendment containing the judicial misconduct crime is scheduled to be introduced after the third Commercial Act amendment, which is currently undergoing filibuster in the plenary session. If the filibuster on the Commercial Act amendment ends on the 25th, the bill could be introduced immediately, requiring the party to prepare amendments or adjust the order of introduction beforehand.