Park Young-jae, Minister of National Court Administration. [Photo=Yonhap News]

Park Young-jae, Minister of the National Court Administration, suddenly announced his intention to resign on the 27th. 

The internal deliberation process behind his decision has not been disclosed. Whether it stemmed from political pressure, a strategic consideration within the judiciary, or a personal choice cannot be definitively determined.

However, not knowing the motive does not mean we should withhold judgment. Public office is evaluated not by intent, but by one's position of responsibility and the timing of one's actions. And this is by no means a tranquil time.

The judiciary currently stands at the point of a head-on collision regarding the separation of powers. 

The Democratic Party of Korea has pushed to introduce a "law-distorting crime" and has even openly discussed the possibility of impeaching Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. Political rhetoric targeting specific rulings and mentioning punishment for judges has continued. 

This goes beyond the scope of policy debate; it is a structural tension surrounding the independence of the judiciary.

At the core of this phase lies the Public Official Election Act case involving leader Lee Jae-myung. 

The Supreme Court remanded the case with the intent of a guilty verdict. A remand is neither a final acquittal nor a final conviction. But at least one thing is clear: the trial must continue. 

The essence of the rule of law lies in the continuity of procedure. 

Whether it is the President, an opposition leader, or an influential politician, no one should be an exception to the flow of a trial. The moment political status begins to dictate the speed of a trial, the law loses its balance. 

If a trial is stopped or delayed to accommodate a political schedule, it is no longer the judiciary. 

The normal progression of the Lee Jae-myung trial is not a matter of whether one likes or dislikes a specific individual. 

It is a matter of how democracy functions. Those in power must stand trial, and trials must proceed without wavering. 

If this collapses, we can no longer claim that anyone is equal before the law.

Concerns that the controversy over the "law-distorting crime" could intimidate the judiciary are valid. 

While penal laws are not applied retroactively, the possibility that rulings made after its enactment could become targets of political attacks and accusations remains. 

However, if the trial must stop simply because such a possibility exists, this would be a form of judicial self-mutilation. Whether a law is unconstitutional is a matter to be contested through constitutional channels; it cannot be a reason for the judiciary to intimidate itself.

It is at this point that the responsibility of the Minister of the National Court Administration emerges. 

The Minister cannot intervene in the outcome of individual cases. However, their role is to refine the institutional environment so the entire judiciary remains unshaken by external winds and to serve as a shield, ensuring judges can make decisions based on the law and their conscience. 

That is the very reason for the existence of judicial administration.

Now is the time when that shield is needed most. 

At such a time, the choice of the head to step down creates anxiety among the public. 

One might interpret this as a strategic retreat. 

However, public office is evaluated by its results. An exit during a crisis leaves behind an institutional void.

The judiciary is not an institution driven by popularity. It is even less of an institution that panders to power. 

The judiciary is an institution that delivers uncomfortable rulings, endures criticism, and maintains procedures to the end. That is the dignity of the judiciary and the mission bestowed upon it by the Constitution. 

No flower blooms for more than ten days. Power is finite. 

Neither the majority of today nor today's political pressure will last forever. 

But the attitude of the judiciary remains in the record. Who held their ground, who upheld the principles, and who backed away in a crisis—these facts will not be erased even as time passes.

The Lee Jae-myung trial must proceed normally. 

Safeguarding the environment for that trial is the duty of judicial administration.

Minister of the National Court Administration Park Young-jae, withdraw your resignation. 

Now is not the time to leave. 

The greater the crisis, the more the leader must hold their post. 

That is the way to protect the judiciary and the minimum responsibility owed to the people.