Supreme Court "Difficulty in recognizing job relevance for Ji Gwi-yeon's suspicions based on current findings"... Conclusion deferred (Comprehensive)

"Did not handle any cases of lawyers I met at the time, nor lawyers I sat with over the past 10 years"

"Judge Ji left after having a drink or two at the second establishment... No female employees were present"

Court Audit Committee "Will rigorously handle any misconduct revealed after awaiting investigation results from investigative agencies"

Senior Judge Ji Gwi-yeon (Seoul=Yonhap News) Senior Judge Ji Gwi-yeon orders reporters to leave at the second hearing of former President Yoon Suk-yeol's sedition charges at the Seoul Central District Court on April 21. 2025.4.21 [Photo Pool] photo@yna.co.kr

The Supreme Court, which investigated the 'room salon entertainment suspicions' involving Senior Judge Ji Gwi-yeon (51, Judicial Research and Training Institute 31st term) of the Seoul Central District Court, the presiding judge in former President Yoon Suk-yeol's sedition case, ruled that "based on the facts confirmed to date, it is difficult to recognize a connection to official duties."

The Court Audit Committee, which includes external members, agreed with these internal investigation results but also stated that as an investigation by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) is currently underway, they should await the investigation's outcome and rigorously handle any misconduct revealed thereafter.

On the 30th, the Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics and Audit Office released the specific facts of the suspicions, the conclusions, and the deliberations of the Court Audit Committee to the press, based on their on-site investigation of the establishments, interviews with involved parties, and information provided by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee.

Regarding the two lawyers who accompanied the judge, the Ethics and Audit Office explained, "The judge in question was a judicial trainee and a public interest legal advisor about 15 years ago when he worked at a certain support facility, and they are 7 and 9 years junior to the judge in legal career."

They further stated, "As a senior in the legal profession, the judge became acquainted with them, encouraging them who were working alone in a region with few legal professionals, and they met about once a year until COVID-19," adding, "It was their usual practice for the judge to pay for meals and drinks at the first establishment with his juniors."

Democratic Party, "Reveals photos of Judge Ji Gwi-yeon's entertainment in adult establishments" (Seoul=Yonhap News) Reporter Kim Ju-hyung = On May 19, Noh Jong-myeon, spokesperson for the Democratic Party's election committee, holds a press conference at the party's headquarters in Yeouido, Seoul, to reveal related photos and allege that "Senior Judge Ji Gwi-yeon, the presiding judge in former President Yoon Suk-yeol's sedition case, received entertainment in an adult establishment." 2025.5.19 kjhpress@yna.co.kr

The visit to the establishment in question was on August 9, 2023. They met at a seafood restaurant near Gyodae Station at the judge's invitation and had dinner and drinks for about two hours in an open hall. The meal cost of 155,000 won was paid by Judge Ji.

Judge Ji expressed his intention to leave early from the first restaurant due to trial preparations, but at the suggestion of lawyer A, who expressed disappointment at meeting after a long time, they moved to the establishment in question for a second round, a place lawyer A frequented.

The Supreme Court stated, "According to the testimonies of the involved parties, Judge Ji and lawyer B did not know where they were going when they moved to the next location. Upon entering the establishment in question, they did not consider it to be a typical room salon, as it had a large hall with live singing facilities."

The Supreme Court further stated that the on-site investigation of the establishment's interior by the Ethics and Audit Office also corroborated these internal testimonies.

Regarding the establishment, the court explained, "Before the drinks were served, a waiter was asked to take a photo. According to the testimonies of the involved parties, the judge in question had a drink or two after one bottle of alcohol was served and left shortly thereafter. There were no female employees present while the judge was there."

Afterward, the two lawyers continued drinking at the venue, and the payment was made by lawyer A.

The Supreme Court particularly emphasized, "None of the accompanying individuals had any ongoing cases in the judge's court at that time, nor had the judge handled any cases where the accompanying lawyers were appointed as representatives in the past 10 years," and added, "There has been no further meeting between the judge and the accompanying individuals after the gathering on August 9, 2023."

Based on this, they concluded, "Based on the facts confirmed to date, it is difficult to recognize a connection to official duties."

A Supreme Court official explained the criteria for "recognizing job relevance between a lawyer and a judge" as follows: "If a specific case is ongoing or clearly expected to be ongoing, they are considered job-related. In other cases, the determination of job relevance is made by considering various circumstances such as the relationship between the job and the lawyer, whether a personal friendship exists between the judge and the lawyer, the amount of money or gifts exchanged, and the circumstances and timing of receiving such items."

Senior Judge Ji Gwi-yeon entering (Seoul=Yonhap News) Senior Judge Ji Gwi-yeon (center) enters the second hearing of former President Yoon Suk-yeol's sedition charges at the Seoul Central District Court on April 21. 2025.4.21 [Photo Pool] photo@yna.co.kr

This matter was presented as a key audit case at the Court Audit Committee's third-quarter regular meeting on the 26th.

The Court Audit Committee, established in 2015 to enhance the fairness and transparency of judicial audit operations, is composed of seven members, including the chairperson. Six of these members are appointed from outside the judiciary, and the remaining one is appointed from among judges.

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Cheon Dae-yeop, designated this case for deliberation, considering it a "misconduct case attracting significant public attention, in light of discussions in the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, media reports, and the public's right to know."

The Judicial Ethics and Audit Office had previously concluded its internal investigation, finding that the suspicions were not sufficiently explained, and Chief Justice Cheon had presented this conclusion to the National Assembly. However, facing criticisms from within the Democratic Party about "protecting their own," it appears a decision was made to seek external judgment.

The Audit Committee's deliberation concluded, "Based on the facts currently confirmed, it is difficult to determine that the judge in question has grounds for disciplinary action." However, they also decided that "the investigation results from the investigative agency (CIO) should be awaited, and if any facts revealed subsequently constitute misconduct, it should be dealt with rigorously."

Following the Audit Committee's recommendation, the Judicial Ethics and Audit Office is expected to defer its conclusion until the CIO's findings are released.

Previously, the Democratic Party had criticized the Criminal Division 25 for its unusual decision to grant bail to former President Yoon based on the time rather than the date on March 7th.

In May, they released photos, allegedly taken at a venue in Gangnam, Seoul, believed to be an adult entertainment establishment, showing Judge Ji sitting alongside two companions, claiming he received entertainment there.

As the controversy escalated, the Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics and Audit Office announced in the same month that they were "investigating the facts by reviewing all possible means" and that "if concrete acts of misconduct are confirmed, procedures will be carried out in accordance with relevant laws." Yonhap News