Let's assume one situation. A The newspaper reported a great deal of social wave. A few of the reporters who participated in the news a few years ago were not able to make a decision, but a reporter who participated in the coverage said that he was studying the article in an external journal and wrote with his own name. The reporter commented on the content and background of the article, saying, "It is the significance of the report, and it can be evaluated as a report that promotes the harmony between the human rights of public officials (who are the object of criticism) and the rights of the people to know." .

Soon after, the shocking facts about the news were revealed. A secret document written by the A newspaper management planning office was disclosed, and this report was mentioned as a representative example of "A newspaper cooperated with government administration". The suspicion of 'press deal' has been raised. Even if it is not so, the criticism of the academic community that the viewpoint of the report and the logic development are very unreasonable has been continued. Then one reader asked the reporter. 'Why did you defend the report of the problem in your article in your name in an external journal?'

How can this reporter answer? If you do not know, you will not be able to say, 'I never positively assessed or defended the report.' So what about the next example?
● Why did the judge defend the ruling?

In December 2013, the Supreme Court sentenced a decision of great social significance. A few days later, the judges who participated in the trial process were not the Supreme Court judge, but there was no decision, but a judge who participated in the case review wrote the article in his own name, saying it was the result of studying the judgment in the external journal. The judge explained the content and background of the ruling and concluded that "it is the significance of the ruling," and concluded that "it is a judgment designed to harmonize the legal stability and the enforcement regulations of the Labor Standards Act."

Soon after, the shocking facts about the ruling were revealed. The confidential documents prepared by the Supreme Court's court administration office were disclosed, and this judgment was mentioned as the representative case of "cooperating with the judiciary in operating the government". There was a suspicion of 'trial transaction'. Even so, the criticism of the academic world that the viewpoint and logic development of the judgment (one of the core parts) was extremely difficult was continuing. Then a reporter asked the judge. 'Why did you defend the ruling of the matter in an article written in an external journal under your name?'

The first case is only a hypothetical situation, but the second case is what happened. As we have seen, it would be very difficult to say in the first case that the journalist did not positively evaluate the report or that it did not advocate it. It is natural that in the second case, which is the actual situation, it is difficult to say that the judge did not evaluate the judgment positively or to defend it. Unfortunately, it actually happened.

The judge, who appeared in the second case, is a judge of the Constitution of Imizon who was formally appointed on April 18. In December 2013, Ji-sung participated as a trial researcher in the process of reviewing the ordinary wage case sent by the Supreme Court. Particularly controversial in this ruling is the so-called 'principle of faithfulness' 'Labor-management agreements that regular bonuses are not included in regular wages are in violation of the Labor Standards Act, but because (in limited circumstances) the principle of good faith between labor and management must be prioritized in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, It is the logic that the agreement can be accepted.

In her article titled "Court Case Study" of the journal [BFL] published by the Seoul National University Financial Law Center in 2014, Lee Yeon-seon said in her article on the normal wage ruling that " It can be judged by judgments designed to harmonize the legal stability and the enforcement regulations of the Labor Standards Act. " As mentioned earlier, this logic has been criticized by academia, and in 2018, the Court Administrative Office has made it clear that the judiciary has cooperated with the government in operating the ruling, Also,

Normally, advocating wage ruling is not a problem. Apart from the allegations of court proceedings, as a lawyer, you can also positively assess the logic of this judgment in your own discretion. But anyone who wants to be a judge of the Constitution has an obligation to make his point about why he defended the verdict. However, the candidate's answer, which he heard only a few times after asking questions several times over a few days, was "not advocating." The candidate argued that "the papers mentioned in the press did not advocate or positively evaluate the background, significance, or explanation of the case in the view of the reviewing researcher."
● "I did not advocate."

As I said before, this answer from the judge is not convincing. If someone writes in his own name and writes, "The significance of the subject judgment" can be evaluated as "~", this sentence is my own 'valuation' of the name itself, I can not help it. This is also the public responsibility that I have to bear in writing my name on the public face. Imperial judges who said, "I can evaluate the significance of the judgment of the object," is not to say that this assessment is not a valuation of the judgment. It is no different than saying a deer is a horse, or a black is a white.

In some cases, the Supreme Court justifies the judge by claiming that the researcher of the Supreme Court justifies the contents of the Supreme Court and the contents of the Supreme Court's case to the public without commenting on subjective judgment. However, even if it is difficult to find a case where a Supreme Court trial researcher negatively evaluates a target judgment in an external commentary, it can not be said that there is no positive evaluation of the target judgment.

'Even if some valuation exists, it is inappropriate for the court investigator who belongs to the Supreme Court to claim responsibility because it is a practice that can be positively evaluated.' This is because it is a claim that a person who is a candidate for the important office of the Constitutional Court should be held accountable for the writings he wrote in the name of practice. Many lawyers and citizens did not tolerate the excuse of "practice" in the documents written only for internal use by lawyers' administrative counselors, whose public accountability was markedly lower than that of the Constitutional Court judge when the suspicion of judicial farmers became controversial.
● Imperial judges are bigger than "what they said": "what they did not say"

Unlike the claims of the judge of the imperial court, 'the defendant of the judicial decision of trial' The Imperial Justice does not recognize the responsibility. However, what Imsun says is a small problem compared to the question to be examined from now on. The bigger problem is 'what the judge did not say.'

When I found out that Imjun 's judge wrote a letter to defend the normal wage ruling of' trial suspicion ', the most curious thing was that this candidate did not write this at the time of 2014. I wondered what position the judge of the Constitutional Court, Lee Mi-sun, who was a candidate for the Constitutional Court judge, had in April 2019 when he had to disclose his opinions and legal opinions to the people. However, Miyoshi said, "I think it is inappropriate to disclose the position of the Supreme Court." I have not spoken.

This candidate 's answer made me an ontological worry. All legal cases in the world can be divided into two. One would be the case under trial, and the other would be the verdict. The judge said that it is inappropriate for the Constitutional Court candidate to disclose his position on the final verdict. If this is the case, it would be more inappropriate to state the position of the ongoing case, which is not finalized. If so, the Constitutional Court candidate arrives at a logical conclusion that it is inadequate to state the position of any legal event in the world. To the absurdity of not being able to ask for any legal case to the person who is going to be the Constitutional Court judge, who is the final interpreter of the Constitution.

Even Im Yeon-seon's judge has virtually rejected the request for public disclosure by judge Song Seung-yong, who is a current judge. It was not the individual opinion of the candidate (who was the reviewer of the case), "but the prevailing logic of the new rule in question in the normal wage ruling in 2013 was," but what position you have in 2019 when you become a candidate for the Constitutional Court It is not revealed. I am afraid that, as of 2019, as a candidate for the Constitutional Court in 2013, not 2013 or 2014, I asked again what I think of this decision, and this answer came back. "I think it is not appropriate for a judge candidate to comment on a decision of the Supreme Court. It is my position that the legislative purpose of the labor law, including the Labor Standards Act, must be realized."

It was a more progressive answer than the first, but the position of not being able to say the decision of the Supreme Court was unremarkable. The judge of Im Mi-sun is finally saying 'not to tell'.

● Military homosexuality, refugees, 5.18 ... This unjust judge

This is not the only thing Imjingun has not said. On April 10, at a hearing, Lee said, "I have never seriously reviewed a legal issue" about the issue of "prohibiting military homosexuality." I also asked about refugees and migrants' I did it. " We responded to the preliminary questions about the minimum wage system, religious taxation, The judge did not say.

The Constitutional Court judge is probably one of the most powerful of the publicly elected democratically elected officials. Constitutional judges have dismissed the impeachment proposal against the current president and have accepted the impeachment proceedings against other incumbent presidents and dismissed them. Constitutional judges blocked the transfer of capital, abolished adultery, declared that abortion was not in line with the Constitution, and acknowledged conscientious objection. All these things were decided by constitutional judges who never received a single vote from the people.

Therefore, the democratic legitimacy of the process of appointing a constitutional judge is the very basis of the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court system. And the democratic legitimacy is achieved not only through the nomination of the elected president, but also when the constitutional justice candidate's position on the Constitution and the law is clearly stated to the people and the people can understand and accept it. A person who has his or her legal opinions before the people, and whose opinions do not exceed the limits that at least many people can tolerate, can be defined as a constitutional justice with democratic legitimacy. However, it was difficult to understand the legal opinions of the candidate. The judge was appointed to the Constitutional Court, avoiding responsibility for what he said and not telling him what to say.
● This judge appointed without speaking ... I look forward to good luck.

In the next six years, the judge will say a lot. You will say whether you want to keep or abolish the death penalty, and you will also talk about the National Security Law and the military homosexuality prohibition provisions. Numerous constitutional issues that can not be predicted for now are waiting for the words of the judge. And in the words of Miyoshi, judges will be given the power to change the law and the world.

If the words of Imjun Constitutional Judge are to benefit the majority of the people in the future, it will be a great fortune. But if you do not do it, the process of appointing a judge who does not know the responsibility of what you say and what you did not say will return with great regret. I wish you all the best of luck.

(Photo: Yonhap News)