On the 5th, President Lee Jae-myung delivered a speech during a cabinet meeting held at the Presidential Office in Yongsan, Seoul. It has been reported that among the three candidates President Lee is considering for the position of Constitutional Court judge, lawyer Lee Seung-yeop has been included, drawing unanimous criticism from the opposition. This is because Lee has defended President Lee in cases involving violations of the Public Official Election Act, perjury, and the illegal remittance to North Korea involving Ssangbangwool.
On the 8th, Rep. Na Kyung-won of the People Power Party expressed her outrage on Facebook, saying, “It’s an appalling matter” and questioned whether they were planning to settle hefty lawyer fees with a Constitutional Court judge position, calling it a profound challenge to the spirit of the Constitution and an unprecedented conflict of interest in constitutional history.
Rep. Na continued, “This goes beyond a simple act of political repay; it’s an explicit intention of securing ‘judicial insurance’ through the Constitutional Court to overturn potential guilty verdicts.” She criticized the attempt as a “shield appointment designed to provide multiple layers of judicial insurance for Lee Jae-myung’s acquittal through laws to increase the number of Supreme Court justices and introduce trial petitions.”
She also emphasized, “We must immediately stop the tragedy of degrading the national shield into a shield for ‘the criminal president.'”
Rep. Kim Ki-hyun of the People Power Party also criticized the move on Facebook, stating, “The more this goes on, the higher the mountain of favoritism appointments for President Lee,” clarifying that the power was not given to recommend “judicial impenetrable armor” for the president’s personal benefit.
He further commented that this amounted to “an improper transaction where personal attorney fees are replaced by a public office,” describing it as “a severe constitutional violation and clear overreach of authority.”
He added that there seemed to be an intention to drag any possible guilty verdicts for violations of the Public Official Election Act to the Constitutional Court to nullify them. He argued that the attempt to recommend a close lawyer, who served personal interests by defending in such cases that had been sent back with a guilty intent by the Supreme Court, to a Constitutional Court position itself posed a significant challenge to the Constitution.
Rep. Jang Dong-hyuk pointed out, “It seems like an open attempt to dominate the Constitutional Court using someone who was even called ‘Lee Jae-myung’s lawyer,'” arguing that no matter how much the president and the ruling party talk about judicial reform, it amounts to ‘judicial weakening’ and ‘judicial degradation’ through evasion.
Joo Jin-woo, the party’s legal advisory chairman, stated on Facebook, “Appointing Lee Jae-myung’s personal lawyer as a Constitutional Court judge is both a compensation appointment and a conflict of interest,” expressing concern that if the Constitutional Court were reduced to a subsidiary of President Lee, it might interfere with Supreme Court rulings. He concluded by saying, “It is an embarrassing compensation appointment and a clear conflict of interest that must be immediately withdrawn.”