There is a court that draws attention with every special counsel case ruling: the Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Settlement Division 33, presided over by Chief Judge Lee Jin-gwan. In cases related to the December 3 emergency martial law, the court handed down sentences even heavier than what special counsel prosecutors sought, and in some cases overturned other courts' acquittal rulings to find defendants guilty. While some praise the rulings as bold judgments made according to a judge's conscience, others point out that unpredictable rulings place a burden on other courts.
According to the legal community on the 17th, the Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Settlement Division 33 sentenced former President Yoon Suk-yeol to two years in prison on the 13th of this month. He had been indicted on charges of violating the Political Funds Act.
Yoon was indicted on charges of conspiring with his wife Kim Keon-hee to receive 58 opinion polls worth a total of about 270 million won free of charge from Myung Tae-kyun between April 2021 and March 2022.
Kim, who was tried separately on the same charges, was acquitted in both the first and second trials. At the time, the first- and second-trial courts found that the polls were not conducted solely for the benefit of Yoon and his wife. Rather, they judged that Myung had voluntarily conducted and distributed the polls to expand his own political influence.
However, the court in Yoon's case reached a different conclusion. The court found that for 14 of the 58 polls, there had been an implicit agreement between Yoon, his wife, and Myung. As grounds for the guilty verdict, the court cited that Myung had not merely handed over materials once or twice, but had maintained an ongoing relationship, including discussing election strategy. As the guilt-or-innocence rulings for Kim and Yoon diverged on the same charges, the Supreme Court postponed Kim's appeal ruling, which had been scheduled for the previous day, to the 24th.
Judge Lee has shown a firm stance not only in Yoon's Political Funds Act case but also in the insurrection cases related to the emergency martial law. In the case of former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo on charges of carrying out important duties in the insurrection, he handed down a sentence of 23 years in prison — eight years more than the 15 years sought by the special counsel. In the case of former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae, he handed down a sentence of 25 years in prison, exceeding the 20 years sought by the special counsel. In Park's case in particular, he also recognized the evidentiary value of a notebook belonging to former Defense Intelligence Command chief Noh Sang-won, which had not been accepted in earlier insurrection-related trials.
In the legal community, some assess that Judge Lee's rulings serve as an example showing that the judiciary operates according to the independent judgment of individual judges rather than in a uniform direction. A sitting judge in the Seoul metropolitan area said, "A ruling can be criticized, but the very fact that a court can reach a conclusion different from previous judgments also shows that the judiciary is not an organization that moves uniformly in a particular direction." A lawyer who is a former chief judge also explained, "A judge can make a judgment according to his own conscience and legal reasoning, even if it differs from existing precedents or the judgments of other courts. The reason for having a three-tier trial system is precisely so that the appellate court and the Supreme Court can correct any errors."
On the other hand, there is also criticism that this could undermine legal stability. A legal community official pointed out, "If conclusions and sentences differ from court to court in similar cases, the public will lose trust in the judiciary. For the court's credibility and predictability, an attitude of respecting prior rulings is also necessary."
There are also concerns that a first-trial ruling that deviates from expectations could place a burden on the appellate court. Because these cases involve intertwined political interests, the first-trial sentence effectively serves as a guideline. Depending on how the first-trial ruling is made, it will inevitably be a burden whether the appellate court reverses the original judgment or dismisses the appeal. The point is that while bold rulings are important, it is also necessary to consider sentencing examples from other courts.
In particular, controversy has also arisen over the court's judgment that Kim was a co-principal offender. The court judged that Kim was a co-principal, on grounds that she was not merely a messenger but had directly consulted with Myung and conveyed the poll contents to Yoon. Regarding this, some in the legal community point out that it was inappropriate for the court in Yoon's case to determine whether an unindicted person was a co-principal. Another legal community official said, "Even if a specific person's name appears in the charged facts, it is customary not to definitively conclude guilt or conspiracy regarding a person who has not been indicted. Making a judgment without having sufficiently reviewed the records concerning that person could impose a considerable precedential burden on the court that later directly handles that person." The point is that a judgment exceeding the scope of one's own case could burden the court handling a subsequent case.
