Yoon Yong-geun, a People Power Party lawmaker, questions Noh Kyung-pil, Minister of National Court Administration, about the suspension of President Lee Jae-myung's trial during the National Assembly's Budget and Accounts Committee meeting held on the 25th. [Photo = KNN screen capture]

Noh Kyung-pil, Minister of National Court Administration, failed to provide a clear answer during a National Assembly inquiry regarding the legal basis for suspending President Lee Jae-myung's criminal trial. He merely repeated the generic statement that "the presiding court reached the decision after considering various circumstances."

However, Noh is the very person who served as the presiding Justice for the Supreme Court appeal of Kim Hye-kyung’s public official election law violation case but failed to deliver a verdict for approximately 11 months. Since his transition to Minister of National Court Administration, proceedings for that case have effectively come to a halt.

"Why discriminate against the right to a fair trial for Lee Jae-myung alone?"

On the 25th, during the plenary session of the National Assembly's Budget and Accounts Committee, People Power Party lawmaker Yoon Yong-geun pressed Minister Noh on the issue of President Lee's trial suspension.

Rep. Yoon asked, "Why does the court refuse to recognize the right to a speedy trial for President Lee Jae-myung alone, and instead discriminates against him?" and further questioned, "Is there any rational reason for such discrimination?"

He then recalled remarks made by President Lee during his time as mayor of Seongnam:

“In a country where even a president can be arrested if they commit a crime, we must prove that everyone is equal before the law, even if it requires a compulsory investigation.”

Rep. Yoon pressed him, asking, "Since President Lee himself desires this, shouldn't his right to a speedy trial be guaranteed as a citizen?" He was ironically pointing out that an exception—the suspension of a trial during a term—is being applied solely to President Lee.

"The indictment has already been filed"... Silence on legal grounds

The point of contention is whether the term "prosecution" (indictment) in Article 84 of the Constitution includes trials for cases that have already been indicted.

Article 84 of the Constitution stipulates that the President shall not be charged with a criminal offense during their tenure, except for insurrection or treason. While there is little disagreement that one cannot be newly indicted while in office, it is not explicitly stated whether a trial that began before taking office must also be halted.

Rep. Yoon argued that the dictionary definition of "prosecution" is "the act of filing a public indictment for a criminal case," and asked whether President Lee's case had already been indicted. Minister Noh acknowledged that it was indeed "in a state of being indicted."

Rep. Yoon challenged the legal basis for the trial suspension, noting, "There is no provision for suspending the trial of a person who has already been indicted other than Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Act." Article 306 stipulates that trial proceedings should be suspended only when the defendant lacks the capacity to distinguish objects or make decisions, or is unable to attend due to illness.

To this, Minister Noh replied, "I understand that the presiding court made the decision after considering various circumstances, such as his status as the head of state and whether it would interfere with the conduct of state affairs."

It can be interpreted that the courts handling President Lee’s cases chose an interpretation where Article 84 of the Constitution can be applied directly, as the Constitution is a higher norm than statutes. In fact, the 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court, while postponing the remand trial for the Public Official Election Act, stated it was an "action taken in accordance with Article 84 of the Constitution."

The problem is that there is no established constitutional judgment or precedent regarding whether "prosecution" covers trials that have already begun. Although Rep. Yoon specifically asked for this legal basis, Minister Noh provided "conduct of state affairs" and "the judgment of the presiding court" instead of a constitutional interpretation.

When Rep. Yoon asked again, "Does the National Court Administration just stand by if a presiding judge violates the law?" Minister Noh drew a line, stating, "The National Court Administration is an organization that supports trials; it is not responsible for such matters."

The explanation that the National Court Administration cannot interfere with individual trials is valid. However, demanding intervention in a trial is a different matter from clarifying the legal basis for a trial's suspension.

The Kim Hye-kyung case: 11 months of inactivity after assignment

The reason Minister Noh's answers draw attention is because of the Kim Hye-kyung case, which he handled personally.

Kim was indicted for conspiring to commit acts of donation under the Public Official Election Act in connection with meal expenses worth 104,000 won paid for by a secretary with a Gyeonggi-do corporate card. The first and second trials recognized Kim’s implicit consent and sentenced her to a fine of 1.5 million won.

The case was received by the Supreme Court on May 28, 2025, and assigned to the 3rd Division of the Supreme Court on August 4 of the same year. The presiding Justice was Noh Kyung-pil, then a Supreme Court Justice.

However, no verdict was reached until Noh took office as Minister of National Court Administration on July 14, 2026. This was about 13 and a half months after the case was received by the Supreme Court, and about 11 months after it was assigned to him as the presiding Justice.

Conventionally, the Minister of National Court Administration does not handle trial duties. As Noh moved to his new position, the deliberations on Kim’s case effectively stalled until a successor could be appointed.

There is no evidence to conclude that the delay in the final appeal was intentional on Noh's part. Every case differs in its issues, volume of records, and the consensus process among Supreme Court Justices. However, one cannot avoid asking for accountability regarding the result, where deliberations came to a standstill because he moved to the position of Minister without reaching a conclusion after 11 months as the presiding Justice.

Asked about the Constitution, replied "There is a reason for convention"

His answers regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Justices were also ambiguous.

Rep. Yoon asked why Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution divides the right to recommend among the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the right to consent to the National Assembly, and the right to appoint to the President. Minister Noh replied that it was "to ensure the independence of the judiciary."

However, when asked whether it was appropriate for the Democratic Party to mention the impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on the grounds that they did not receive prior approval from the President, he said, "It is also necessary to respect the practice of having respected the President's right to appoint."

When asked, "Which takes precedence: convention or the Constitution?" he replied that "the Constitution is superior to convention," but added, "there is also a reason for the existing convention." In essence, he avoided making a judgment on whether political impeachment pressure infringes upon the Chief Justice's right to recommend and judicial independence.

In his inaugural address, Minister Noh emphasized, "The most fundamental calling of the judiciary is to guarantee the basic rights of the people through speedy and fair trials."

Judicial independence must be upheld. However, independence is not a shield to refuse legal explanations or to avoid responsibility for trial delays. The principles of the head of judicial administration are evaluated not by inaugural addresses, but by the cases they handle and the answers they provide to the National Assembly.

For Minister Noh, who failed to conclude the Kim Hye-kyung case in 11 months as the presiding Justice and offered no answer regarding the legal basis for the suspension of President Lee’s trial, one question remains.

Why does the principle of a speedy and fair trial repeatedly become an exception when it comes to the cases of the President and his spouse?