[ad_1]
Choi Hansoo l Professor of Economics and Commerce, Kyungpook National University
How do judges make decisions? According to legal realism, judges, like anyone else, make judgments for specific purposes. So what is the purpose? In an analysis of the Japanese judiciary, Harvard University professor Mark Ramsayer argues that it is a desire for the promotion of judges. He saw that the seniority-based promotion system in the Japanese judiciary was a channel through which judges could use this aspiration to make political decisions. In fact, Professor Ramseyre found that judges who made decisions favorable to the PLD were later promoted to high-ranking judges more quickly after receiving good posts. These ideas also apply to the Korean judiciary, as seen in Judicial Nongdan during Yang Seung-tae’s Supreme Court days. This case was a collaboration between the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, who sought to concentrate power through the use of staff rights, and unethical judges from various administrative offices in the elite course. However, what is more regrettable than Nongdan’s trial is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Kim Myung-soo, did not proceed with appropriate disciplinary measures or significantly improve the system. This confirmed that the court was not a self-cleaning organization. And they also learned that the sovereign had no means to hold them accountable unless the National Assembly indicted the judge. As a result, people’s mistrust of the courts grew. Autonomy has increased, because accountability is extremely deficient. From the public’s perspective, judges are “legal aristocrats” who only have authority but are not responsible. Some say that autonomy is based on the democratic legitimacy of the judiciary, but I do not agree. It is evident that the judges appointed by the bar exam or the bar exam do not receive justification of the presidential level chosen by direct public vote. In these circumstances, the minimum expectation that a sovereign places in the courts is judicial restraint. The autonomy of the courts can also be recognized when there is a mode of moderation that respects the legitimacy of matters recognized by the discretion of the executive. However, the appearance of the courts in recent years is far from this. The court cited the suspension of the execution for the suspension of two months of the attorney general for having irreparable damages without sufficient grounds. As a result, the disciplinary power of the president, which is a means of controlling the attorney general, who abuses his authority, has been deprived. According to the court’s logic, the president’s control of personnel rights over the attorney general can only be reduced and repressed. This is because all staff control over that is now irreparable. Is the political independence of the attorney general a constitutional value that is important enough to compensate for abuse of individual authority, and is the office also an institution with democratic legitimacy comparable to that of the president? And was it correct to make this judgment in the decision to stay the execution and not in the main case? It is not only this. Samsung Electronics VP Lee Jae-yong’s decision to say goodbye to the destruction is a trial period and is underway. At the beginning of the trial, he arbitrarily interpreted the US regulations and recommended the establishment of the Compliance Committee, but now he adopted the report of a professional judge in the form of a watermelon stain. Various legal experts predict that the presiding judge will be sentenced to probation based on the sentence in February next year. Therapeutic justice in the opinion of the judge? This is only the primary color ‘genetic innocence’. As such, when the court tries to justify the position of the power elite in the name of autonomy, disbelief inevitably rises. Two Nobel laureates in economics, Jean Tyrol and Eric Maskin, asked in 2004: “When and when should a judge be chosen?” They believe that the judging system is not always socially desirable. This is because there is a risk that a judge will make a wrong decision that suits the taste of the voters for the election. At the same time, however, they see the electoral system as desirable since the judges represent the interests of a particular class. This is because the people have the opportunity to punish judges who have given up being the guardians of the public interest. The court’s ruling is so important. Therefore, the sentence cannot be left solely in the hands of 3,200 judges. People have the right to criticize the wrong decision. Also, if the erroneous ruling is due to a structural problem in court, be it an election or whatever, the sovereign must have the power to correct the matter. This is the responsibility and responsibility of the National Assembly. Even before that, the court should also listen to these voices of mistrust and concern and show restraint.
[ad_2]
