South Korea's Judiciary: A Legacy of 'Colonial Law' and Judicial Arrogance

South Korea's judiciary, particularly under the current leadership of Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, is criticized for clinging to a "colonial law" mentality, prioritizing hierarchical bureaucracy over genuine citizen engagement. The article argues this legacy, rooted in Japan's colonial rule, continues to shape a judicial system that operates as an isolated "citadel" rather than a public service.

“

The colonial law mentality continues to be maintained even after liberation.

During the Japanese colonial era, South Korea was denied even the semblance of a jury system that Japan itself implemented, albeit imperfectly. The article points to a 1919 argument by a Japanese Supreme Court chief justice against introducing jury trials in Korea, fearing that protests like the March 1st Movement would make them unworkable. This historical context, the author argues, demonstrates how judicial modernization under colonial rule was merely a facade for a system designed to control, not empower, Koreans.

In contrast, Japan, after its defeat in World War II, introduced reforms like the prosecutor review system and a popular vote for Supreme Court justices. More significantly, Japan adopted a lay judge system in 2009, where six ordinary citizens deliberate alongside three professional judges on guilt and sentencing for serious crimes. Taiwan has also moved in this direction with its National Judges system in 2023. South Korea, however, remains stagnant, with its "National Participation Trial" system lacking binding power for citizen jurors, mirroring the flawed Japanese system of the 1920s.

“

We still cannot even dream of a system where citizens directly share judicial power.

The article asserts that this "colonial law" inheritance, solidified during periods of military dictatorship, has resulted in a judiciary where judges are subordinate to the Chief Justice, and the entire system feels disconnected from public common sense. This insularity is exemplified by recent controversial rulings and Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's handling of Supreme Court justice nominations. His decision to bypass customary consultations with the president and submit nominations in writing is seen as a sign of arrogance and a disregard for democratic legitimacy.

“

The Chief Justice's actions are like a delinquent student begging to be expelled.

The author expresses concern that this deeply ingrained "colonial law" legacy, forgotten by many, continues to thrive, causing significant harm. The judiciary's perceived detachment and autocratic tendencies, the piece concludes, are not merely abstract issues but have tangible consequences, leaving citizens with only the "right to despair" as they witness trials that seem to disregard common sense and public will.

“

The root of this abnormal judiciary, which disregards the sovereign and the constitution, is colonial law.