[ad_1]
[사설] The ‘canonical trial for cardiac arrest’ should not lead to shaking up the judiciary
Check-in: 2020-12-24 18:42:47Revision: 2020-12-24 18:46:20Published: 2020-12-24 18:48:31 (p. 23)
The first ruling of the trial against Professor Kyung-Shim Chung of Dongyang University is causing another wave in our society. The first court in particular admitted all charges of corruption in the entrance examination of Professor Chung’s children and sentenced him to a fine of 500 million won for four years in prison and even imprisoned Professor Jeong in court. As such, the judge’s attitude to irregularities in the entrance examination was determined. The meaning of this ruling is that it is the first court ruling on the so-called ‘country-country situation’ that caused a severe division of national opinion due to various suspicions raised when former Justice Minister Cho Kook, the husband of Professor Jeong, was appointed minister in August of last year. However, I am concerned that the resulting division of national opinion will not be clarified with the decision of the first trial, but will deepen.
National opinion should not be divided by the interpretation of the sub-arguments.
The judiciary also needs efforts to gain public trust
In addition, the Democratic Party continues to criticize Professor Chung’s conviction for irregularities in the entrance exam. The accusations of “the conviction was condemned only in suspicious circumstances without evidence” or “a bad precedent in which the prejudices, prejudices and prejudices of the courts acted” and “a sentence that was directly against the sentence of evidence and the court” they were criticized among members of the Seguido party. Some have raised the need for judicial reform and have even argued that judges should be charged. On the other hand, a petition requesting the impeachment of the Jeong Gyeong-shim court was published in the National Petitions Bulletin of the Blue House. The petitioner said: “I want to ask the court if the sentence was made in accordance with the conscience of the constitution” and demanded that the Blue House and the government actively pursue judicial reform.
In their arguments, the prosecution’s investigation and prosecution process for Professor Chung’s charges was unfair, and there is a suspicion that the court made an unreasonable decision ignoring the fact. In fact, the fact that the prosecution has prosecuted Professor Jeong without a single subpoena investigation, or that it has promoted more than 70 seizure records for allegations of irregularities in the entrance examination of minors, which continues to generate controversy over the research. However, this should not shake the foundations of the judiciary by selling the sentence under the official trial process. We must take into account the criticisms raised by the opposition party, such as the power of the people, that “if they do not agree with them, it is to deny the constitutional order and lead them all to redemption.”
Now the judgment of the first trial has been issued. As Professor Chung immediately announced the appeal policy, the wrongdoing will be dealt with more clearly in the second and third trials in the future. Until then, politicians should refrain from dividing the people again through sub-argument interpretation, and people should also carefully observe the final judgment of the judiciary without prejudice or bias. On the one hand, the Judiciary must also show an effort to resolve the national distrust that it has generated. The judiciary did not show genuine reflection, such as severely disciplining the judges involved in the so-called “ jujubongdan ” during the latest “ sewol ferry trial. ” I urge the public to be reborn as a trusted judiciary through Professor Jeong’s judgment.
