Top court chief reported under new “judicial distortion” law

Mar 13, 2026, 08:41 am

		0
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae arrives at the Supreme Court in Seocho District, Seoul, on March 12, the day the so-called “three judicial reform laws” — expanding the number of Supreme Court justices, introducing the crime of judicial distortion, and allowing constitutional complaints against court rulings — took effect.

A criminal complaint accusing Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae of “judicial distortion” was filed on the very first day that South Korea’s three judicial reform laws came into force.

The legislation — which expands the number of Supreme Court justices, introduces the crime of judicial distortion, and allows constitutional complaints against court rulings — took effect on March 12. On the same day, Cho was reported to the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) in connection with a controversial Supreme Court ruling that sent President Lee Jae-myung’s election law violation case back to a lower court.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court also began receiving constitutional complaints against court rulings, with 11 cases filed by 2 p.m. on the first day of the new system.

Legal experts warn that concerns raised during the legislative debate — particularly the risk of excessive litigation challenging court rulings — are already materializing.

According to legal sources on March 12, attorney Lee Byung-cheol of law firm IA filed a complaint with the CIO against Chief Justice Cho and Supreme Court Justice Park Young-jae, the former head of the National Court Administration. Lee had previously submitted the same complaint to the National Police Agency’s National Investigation Headquarters on March 2. The case was assigned to Yongin Seobu Police Station in Gyeonggi Province, which has jurisdiction over the complainant’s address.

The attorney claims that Cho distorted the Criminal Procedure Act in the Supreme Court’s May 1 ruling last year that overturned a lower-court decision in Lee Jae-myung’s election law case and sent it back for retrial.

He argues that the court failed to properly review the trial record, which reportedly consisted of about 70,000 pages, by printing and examining the documents in paper form. According to the complaint, this omission influenced the final ruling.

“There was a legal obligation to print the roughly 70,000 pages of records and review them before deliberation and judgment under the principle of written proceedings in criminal procedure,” Lee said. “The justices intentionally failed to apply the relevant law despite knowing it should apply to the case, thereby influencing the verdict and committing a serious crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.”

On the same day, the Constitutional Court received multiple constitutional complaints against court rulings. The first case involved a Syrian national seeking to overturn a court decision rejecting his lawsuit against a deportation order. The second complaint was filed by the family of a fisherman abducted to North Korea, requesting the cancellation of a court ruling that dismissed their claim for state compensation due to delayed criminal compensation.

Within legal circles, critics say the feared wave of litigation has already begun with the implementation of the new laws.

Under the judicial distortion law, losing parties may increasingly resort to criminal complaints against judges over unfavorable rulings. Notably, the first case under the law involves a politically sensitive ruling linked to the sitting president.

Legal experts warn that if complaints against judges become common in politically sensitive or high-profile cases, judicial independence and the stability of court decisions could be undermined.

Similarly, the constitutional complaint system allows the Constitutional Court to determine whether a final court ruling violated constitutional rights. However, if litigants use the mechanism simply to challenge unfavorable verdicts, it could effectively become another layer of appeals.

One former district prosecutors’ office chief, now a lawyer, said the new system may produce a chilling effect.

“Contrary to the ruling party’s intention of strengthening accountability in investigations and trials, judges and prosecutors may become overly cautious in their decisions out of fear of criminal liability,” he said.

#judicial reform laws #judicial distortion crime #constitutional complaint against rulings #Cho Hee-dae