Cho Kuk: “Cho Hee-dae is the epitome of ‘arrogant power’… Impeachment motion to be revealed on the 17th”

“The public demands reform for a ‘Supreme Court without Cho Hee-dae'”
“Grounds for impeachment are intentional political involvement”,

Cho Kuk, the interim leader of the Innovation Party, speaks at a special committee meeting at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on the 15th. [Yonhap News],
,
, ‘On the 15th, Cho Kuk, the interim leader of the Innovation Party, criticized Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. The Innovation Party initially planned to release an impeachment motion against Chief Justice Cho that day, but it was postponed to the 17th due to a parliamentary audit by the Legislative and Judiciary Committee.’,
,
, ‘During the opening remarks of a special committee meeting at the National Assembly, Cho said, “The Innovation Party believes that Chief Justice Cho remained silent during the National Assembly audit of the Supreme Court on the 13th, claiming illegality and unconstitutionality,” adding, “Especially when questioned about the annulment of Lee Jae-myung’s case, he claimed it violated the separation of powers, which appeared arrogant and authoritarian to the public.”’,
,
, ‘He continued, “The scene of Chief Justice Cho pledging judicial independence while remaining silent was broadcast live to the entire nation,” explaining that “many citizens are strongly demanding reform of the Supreme Court to be ‘without Cho Hee-dae.’”’,
,
, ‘He further stated, “The Innovation Party will lead and act in accordance with the will of the people,” adding, “The Chief Justice is a public official. Article 7 of the Constitution states that ‘public officials are the servants of the entire people and are responsible to the people.’”’,
,
, ‘Chairman Cho emphasized, “On Friday the 17th, we disclosed the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Cho as a last resort,” and added, “We will also announce a prepared judicial reform plan.”’,
,
, ‘He continued, “I will explain the grounds for impeachment of Chief Justice Cho,” pointing out that “the accused intentionally intervened in politics and tried to change the presidential election that should be decided by the sovereign people.”’,
,
, ‘Furthermore, he criticized, “The accused is the main instigator of the crisis of trust in the judiciary. He remained silent in the face of a national emergency like martial law,” and added, “If martial law had been enforced, the judiciary’s authority would have been diminished, and even the Chief Justice and judges were mentioned as potential targets, yet he remained silent. He was also silent when the court was destroyed during the Seoul Western District Court riots and judges’ safety was threatened.”’,
,
, ‘He added, “Despite consistently remaining silent in the face of such national emergencies, Chief Justice Cho acted at unprecedented speed in ‘Lee Jae-myung’s trial,’ referring the case to the full bench immediately and ruling in just a week after the case’s conclusion. This moment exposed the political backdrop behind the Supreme Court’s prior silence.”’,
,
,