The employee-only entrance to the Seoul Western District Court closed on January 20, 2025. [Photo = Yonhap News]

The next hearing for the case in which lawyer Shin Ping (accused of defamation) was indicted by the Seoul Western District Court is about 20 days away. It was reported on the 29th that lawyer Shin Ping's side submitted a defense brief to the court in preparation for the trial on June 17th.

In the early morning of January 19, 2025, an unprecedented event occurred in Korean legal history: an arrest warrant was issued for a sitting president. The reason cited by Chief Judge Cha Eun-kyung of the Seoul Western District Court was a mere 15 characters: "The suspect is likely to destroy evidence."

The judiciary, which remained adamantly silent despite strong public demands for an explanation, drew its unusual sword of 'indictment in the name of the court organization' against senior lawyer Shin Ping, who criticized the fairness of the warrant review, sparking heated controversy over the abuse of judicial power.

Senior Lawyer Takes the Lead Against the Court's Disregard for Public Demands

The incident stemmed from the judiciary's lack of transparency on a matter of national importance. Despite the grave decision to issue a warrant for the president, the specific grounds for the decision and the process of reviewing the facts were kept strictly under wraps.

In the information vacuum, enraged citizens took to the streets to condemn the "lack of procedural legitimacy," leading to tense situations, including damage to the front gate of the Seoul Western District Court. It was a glimpse of judicial administration where authority was exercised, but the 'responsibility to explain' was absent.

However, both the media and the legal community remained silent on the matter. In response, senior lawyer Shin Ping, a constitutional scholar and former judge, stepped forward. Lawyer Shin raised a public issue based on rapidly spreading rumors online at the time, suggesting that "Judge Cha Eun-kyung attended an impeachment rally, raising concerns about her impartiality, and violated her duty to recuse herself."

Although the court immediately refuted this as untrue, lawyer Shin acknowledged the possibility of error on the same day and issued official corrections and public apologies twice. This demonstrated his lack of malicious intent to spread false information.

Unprecedented 'Indictment in the Name of the Court Organization'... Controversy Over Tactics Spreads

Despite this, the Seoul Western District Court resorted to the extreme measure of an 'indictment in the name of the court organization' rather than having an individual judge file the complaint. Judge Cha Eun-kyung submitted only a written statement expressing a "desire for punishment" instead of appearing as the complainant, the acting head of the Seoul Western District Court directly filed the indictment, and the head of the General Affairs Division drafted the statement.

The police not only showed the online malicious comments to Judge Cha Eun-kyung but also leaked them to the media, resulting in nearly 70 articles being published overnight that reflected only the indictment's perspective.

Lawyer Shin Ping's side argued that "if the victim, the judge, had filed the complaint directly, she could have been held responsible for defamation of a person making a false report due to the clear circumstances of her apology and lack of awareness of falsehood, so the court hid behind the organization to avoid this." They pointed out that this was "a structural workaround and a cunning tactic that fundamentally blocked the defendant's legitimate right to defense and counter-suit."

Key Legal Disputes as Seen in the Defense Brief

According to the defense brief recently submitted by the defendant, lawyer Shin Ping, the current case goes beyond a simple defamation dispute and addresses significant constitutional issues concerning the standing of state institutions to file charges and the freedom of judicial criticism. The core defenses presented by the defense counsel are divided into two categories: dismissal of the indictment and acquittal.

Public Outrage Over 'Selective Justice'... The Judiciary Must Return to Its Original Purpose

Some in the legal community are unanimously condemning this situation as a bad precedent where the judiciary has privatized its organizational power to silence intellectuals critical of it. While the court remains silent with a mere 15-character reason for national critical issues, the public is outraged by the 'selective justice' and 'asymmetrical response' where the entire court organization acts as a guardian for a judge's personal emotional retaliation.

In his defense brief, lawyer Shin stated, "This situation has served as an opportunity to starkly reveal the arrogant sense of privilege of some judges and the structural contradictions of judicial power," but added, "the thread of judicial justice continues because there are many honest judges who silently uphold the law," expressing his hope for fair reason within the judiciary.

In an era where the responsibility to explain is demanded as much as the weight of exercising power, attention is focused on whether the court can restore judicial trust through this trial.

Reporter Lim Yo-hee