The crime of political distortion has no accuser

Home > Opinion > Columns

The crime of political distortion has no accuser

Published: 17 Mar. 2026, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Song Ho-keun

The author is a columnist of the JoongAng Ilbo, a chair professor and director of Doheon Academy, Hallym University.

In Korea, prosecutor and judge remain among the most prestigious professions. Often described as the modern equivalent of passing the traditional state examination, the status attached to these positions is immense. Yet that admiration is matched by resentment. Many people who have faced prosecutors or the courts speak of the experience with lingering bitterness.

The three judicial reform bills, which include a provision allowing constitutional complaints against final Supreme Court rulings, were formally promulgated through the electronic Official Gazette at midnight on March 12. The photo shows the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on the same day. [NEWS1]

For decades, these institutions were widely seen as powerful groups that few could challenge. The only force capable of influencing them was politics. Cooperation between political leaders and prosecutors — sometimes called a political-prosecutorial alliance — became one of the most damaging sources of distortion in Korean politics during the 39 years since democratization.

Kang Man-soo, a former finance minister who served under the administration of President Lee Myung-bak, wrote a memoir-like novel titled “Final Statement” in 2025. After the government changed, Kang became the target of a sweeping investigation. What began as one probe soon expanded into a broader investigation into unrelated matters.

According to his account, investigators scrutinized every detail of his life. He described spending six months in a detention cell roughly the size of 1.5 pyeong (about 53 square feet), where lights remained on around the clock and surveillance cameras were constantly running. Human rights, he wrote, seemed like abstract ideas discussed only in universities.

A notice explaining the revised Constitutional Court Act, which allows constitutional complaints against final Supreme Court rulings, is displayed at the civil affairs office of the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 12, the first day the three judicial reform bills were promulgated. [NEWS1]

Kang later wrote that prosecutors could “create something out of nothing” and that the constitution lay “beneath their feet.” After serving four years and eight months in prison, he presented those remarks as a reflection on his experience.

Prosecutors skilled in expanding investigations and manipulating evidence, along with judges who tolerated political-prosecutorial cooperation, continued to live comfortably even after administrations changed. Recently, however, the political climate has shifted.

Jung Chung-rae, the leader of the ruling Democratic Party, declared that prosecutors who fabricated evidence would be sent to prison. For many people who believe they were treated unfairly by prosecutors or judges, such statements may bring a sense of relief.

President Lee Jae Myung also referred to alleged manipulation of the case involving the Ssangbangwool Group chairman and remittances to North Korea while approving the so-called three judicial reform bills. The idea that powerful judges and prosecutors could face prison has drawn considerable public attention across Korean politics.

Yet the relief may be short-lived. Critics argue that the unintended consequences of the three laws will ultimately be borne by the public. The crime of distorting the law and the amendment to the Constitutional Court Act, both of which took effect at midnight on Thursday, could open the door to an unprecedented wave of litigation.

Instead of protecting citizens’ legal rights, opponents say, the reforms risk creating a litigation crisis that overwhelms the judicial system. At the same time, they claim the judiciary’s ability to check political power has been significantly weakened.

The current administration, which has itself faced intense prosecutorial investigations under the previous government of former President Yoon Suk Yeol, appears determined to escape similar scrutiny. The result, critics argue, is a reform that strengthens political power while leaving citizens to deal with the consequences.

The new crime of distorting the law places even conscientious prosecutors and judges in the potential crosshairs of lawsuits and complaints. Korea already ranks among the leaders in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in terms of civil and criminal litigation.

According to 2025 statistics, Korea recorded about 6.91 million cases, compared to 3.5 million in Japan and about 900,000 in France. Adjusted for population, Korea’s level of litigation is roughly four to eight times higher than those countries.

Korean society tends to resolve disputes through court battles rather than behind-the-scenes compromise. That tendency will not disappear simply because the target of litigation becomes prosecutors or judges.

As of midnight on Thursday, critics say the legal profession risks becoming a so-called 3-D job: dirty, difficult and dangerous. Judges and prosecutors must deal with messy disputes involving crime, fraud or intimidation. Their discretion in interpreting the law may become constrained. At the same time, they face the constant risk of complaints and criminal accusations.

Some observers even ask whether AI might eventually be better suited to making legal judgments if human decision-makers are constantly threatened with prosecution. Even then, they add, one might wonder whether the AI itself could end up facing criminal charges.

The introduction of the amendment to the Constitutional Court Act, which effectively allows a fourth level of appeal, has also raised concerns about the authority of the Supreme Court. If constitutional challenges against Supreme Court rulings become common, legal experts warn that the court’s position as the final authority could weaken.

The Constitutional Court could also become overwhelmed with cases. Some estimates suggest the two courts may face an additional 10,000 to 15,000 cases each year.

Chief Justice Jo Hee-de arrives at the Supreme Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on March 12, the day the government promulgated and enacted the three judicial reform bills. Jo was reported to the National Police Agency the same day on charges of distorting the law in connection with the Supreme Court’s decision to remand President Lee Jae Myung’s election law violation case. [NEWS1]

The legal community may adapt to the heavier workload, but another issue remains. The primary beneficiaries of the judicial reform bills, critics argue, are politicians themselves.

The restructuring of the prosecution service — dividing it into the Serious Crimes Investigation Office and the Public Prosecution Office — has already weakened its influence. The new investigative body cannot pursue crimes involving public officials or election offenses, as those provisions were removed. Meanwhile the prosecution office, lacking its own investigative authority, must rely largely on police investigations.

If political parties file simultaneous complaints against police and prosecutors using the new crime of distorting the law, politically sensitive cases could disappear entirely.

Plans to increase the number of Supreme Court justices to 26 have also drawn criticism. Some opponents argue that the expansion could effectively create legal defenders for the administration.

In that sense, critics say, the reforms have removed a key mechanism of judicial oversight over political power. The balance of the separation of powers could shift toward a concentration of authority.

If using the judiciary as a political tool or blocking judicial oversight constitutes a form of political distortion, the question becomes unavoidable: Who would have the authority to file such a complaint?

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.