On February 13, the court was acquitted of three judges accused of leaking internal information and reporting it to the court during the warrant trial process. A month later, on the 2nd, Judge Choi Chang-suk, currently serving as the head of the Seoul Central District Court, wrote a critical precedent on the ruling in the legal newspaper. After the ruling, criticism outside the judiciary, such as 'Isn't the court covering my family', and 'Isn't it indulgence for suspicion of abuse of judicial administration?' This is the first time I have criticized the public.

In this report, I will try to interpret Judge Choi Chang-suk's precedent, Pyeongseok, and interpret the perspective of Judge Choi's logic that criticizes the 'innocence of warrant warrant intervention' in the eyes of reporters outside the judiciary.

● 'Implementation of the upper reporting norms' and Eichmann in Jerusalem

In the case of the warrant trial intervention, the two warrant judges, Eui-yeon Cho and Chang-ho Seong, reported the records of warrant warrants to the chief criminal judge Shin Kwang-ryul, and the senior chief judge Shin Kwang-ryul reported it back to the court administration. I saw it. The judiciary needs to understand and respond to important cases involving the judges, and it is judged that the actions of the two warrant judges are part of a legitimate judicial administration affairs. These judgments form part of the logic that the actions of these three judges are not inappropriate leaks of confidentiality.

However, Judge Critics criticized that the report of the two warrant-based judges was beyond the necessary scope and was not an official act. Beyond simply judging matters at the level of judicial administration, the two warrant judges criticized that it was' beyond the fair level 'by copying and reporting the relevant persons' statements, as well as the status of evidence and investigation records.

In particular, Judge Choi points out that the actions of the three judges are not justified, even if the court of this case complies with the <Regulations on the Receipt of Major Events and the Final Report>, which was proposed as the basis for 'actual party action' in the judgment. According to this regulation, it was not until the arrest warrant or seizure search was 'finished and ended' that the case should be reported to the court administration. Therefore, Choi said that it was not fair for these judges to report related records and information to the upper level before the results of the warrant.

To sum up, the core of the judiciary's logic that sentenced the decision in February on this issue is that three judges prosecuted in the context of specific and comprehensive norms within the organization that 'critical events must be reported to the top' He was faithful, but he did not act legally. On the other hand, Choi's criticism that pointed out that the three prosecutions that were prosecuted was wrong in the light of the court regulations at the time, goes beyond whether the acts are in line with the regulations, leading to the issue of 'professional reflection' of the three elite judges. In other words, Judge Choi's pointed out the lack of reflection among these three judges who faithfully followed the instructions of the hypocrisy of the judiciary without looking back to see if their actions were just.

This view is also in line with Hannah Arendt's point of view on the importance of 'ethics of actors' in <Ehiman of Jerusalem>. Hannah Arendt's question as she looked at the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi German soldier who faithfully fulfilled the upper orders as a good neighbor, good father, good husband, and good organizer. 'How does an individual who is valued as good and loyal in the organization embody virtue in a particular environment and context?' Judge Choi's precedent includes the view that elite judges should not be condemned both morally and criminally.

● The weight of confidential judgment and 'acting as an elite judge' in public affairs

But if you look more closely at the tribunal's logic that condemned the three judges, this interpretation of Hannah Arendt could be useless. This is because the judges judged that the information reported by the three judges was not `` publicly confidential, '' and that it was not impaired in the functioning of the state, such as a violation of the case investigation, due to the disclosure of the warrant report. In other words, the acts of judges who faithfully followed the instructions of the upper level did not actually cause any virtues.

Judge Choi also criticizes the logic of this court. The judges argued that the trial records leaked by judges Eui-yeon Jo and Chang-ho Seong were not known as 'confidential' because they were already known to the outside through media reports, etc. However, Judge Choi pointed out that there is a clear difference between the fact that the contents of the warrant are made public by the media's private coverage, and publicly known by the judges in charge of the trial. To do. Judging by the fact that 'it has leaked what is already known to the media, it is difficult to make a problem', the weight of the public act of the elite judge, 'Judge of the Central District Court warrant', is not considered at all.

Likewise, Judge Choi Eui-yeon and Seong Chang-ho do not believe that the need for protection as an official secret disappears because the records leaked as' public 'are similar to the information found by the administrative deliberators'' private '. In addition, even if the warrant records leaks and high-level reports did not cause specific problems in the state functions, such as the disruption of the investigation, it is the highest peak of the judicial administration based on the reports of key elite judges called the 'Judge of the Seoul Central District Court'. The court administration criticized the preparation of the 'Response Report' as a matter of conduct that implied the risk of impeding the investigation.

● Expecting more precedents

Sejong, who had just inherited the kingship from the SBS drama <The Deep Tree>, is stuck in a full-length piece and is devoted to resolving the 33rd matrix. Taejong, who established the authority of the throne with the force of the sword, overturns the magic and says, 'The authority of the wage is not to think, to think, to debate, to build up.' To establish authority by force, and to declare it 'natural authority'. This is Taejong's way of governing in drama.
Many judges are wary of internal and external judiciary debates over the outcome of the court's ruling. Indeed, many of the social debates that followed the ruling often end up reproducing the skepticism of 'anyway, the ruling is at the discretion of the judge' rather than producing visible productive results.

However, I think the debate should be more active in the trial of the abuse of judicial administration that is currently taking place. Because the process of judging these cases goes beyond simply making some judges into criminals or not, it is also the process of restoring the actual authority of our socially important institution, the judiciary. Finally, even if these judges are convicted of criminal abuse (and even if they are convicted), the philosophical value that currently supports our society in addition to formal jurisdiction Consideration of the field should be melted.

Every morning, people holding a loudspeaker in front of the court and blaming the judges for words they can't put in their mouths, each placard fluttering around the Seocho-dong courthouse, vomiting their feelings of oppression. Few people think that 'the jurisdiction's authority is built up by force' or 'natural' in the context of the Supreme Court's arrest and the judiciary actually standing on the 'ruins of authority'. I am not sure if the idea of ​​Sejong, who received “I will be different from my time” toward Taejong who is working, is also located in the current judiciary. However, even if it is not a grand idea different from the previous era, I look forward to continuing the abundant debate within the judiciary regarding the decision of the 'judgment of abuse of judicial administration' that will continue. As it will be, it would be good for me as a member of society before I am a journalist, if such a process can reconstitute the authority of an institution called the judiciary.