Home > Opinion > Columns

Should the crime of distorting the law be welcomed?

Published: 17 Apr. 2026, 00:02

Lee Sang-ryeol

The author is a senior editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

The Democratic Party’s push for a parliamentary probe into the alleged Ssangbangwool remittances to North Korea leaves an uneasy impression. If the claim of a fabricated indictment proves true, it would mean prosecutors created charges to target the then–opposition leader Lee Jae Myung, now president. If not, it would suggest the current political power is attempting to suppress the case. The party has already signaled plans for a special counsel investigation into what it calls a “fabricated indictment,” deepening the political stakes surrounding the issue.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong remains seated as he refuses to take the oath as a witness during a parliamentary hearing on allegations of a fabricated indictment in the Ssangbangwool remittances to North Korea case, held by a special committee investigating suspected prosecutorial misconduct under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration at the National Assembly on April 14. [LIM HYUN-DONG]

One question remains unresolved. Allegations that prosecutor Park Sang-yong attempted to persuade former Gyeonggi Vice Gov. Lee Hwa-young through a so-called “salmon dinner party” have been under inspection by the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office since September last year. Yet no conclusion has been announced. If the probe confirms that coercion took place and that testimony was manipulated, the Democratic Party’s claims would gain significant credibility. The delay raises doubts about whether the investigation is unusually complex or whether the allegations themselves lack substance.

The parliamentary probe has summoned former Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok, along with about 40 prosecutors involved in the case, as witnesses. Such a move is without precedent in Korea’s recent political history. In a recent statement, Lee Won-seok warned that if such investigations proceed, future probes into what he called “living power” would become effectively impossible.

His concern may not be exaggerated. There are already signs of unease. Rep. Jeon Jae-soo, a Democratic Party mayoral candidate in Busan, was cleared of allegations involving illicit payments linked to the Unification Church. Investigators cited the statute of limitations, despite testimony that money and gifts had been delivered. While aides were indicted for destroying evidence, prosecutors said they could not establish whether the lawmaker had ordered the act. Critics question whether this reflects delayed or overly cautious investigations that ultimately shield those in power.

If crimes involving those in power go unpunished, it undermines democracy. A system in which the powerful escape accountability erodes public trust in the judiciary. Without such trust, the justice system cannot protect ordinary citizens who lack influence or resources, raising broader concerns about equality before the law.

Public tolerance for such outcomes is limited. In this context, a recently enacted offense known as “distorting the law” has drawn attention. The provision allows punishment of judges or prosecutors who intentionally misapply legal standards. Critics, including Lee Seok-yeon, a former minister of government legislation, have described it as a “shame for a civilized nation,” warning that it could pressure legal officials to act with political considerations in mind.

Yet the law also includes a clause covering cases in which officials knowingly fail to apply relevant statutes, thereby influencing the outcome of investigations or trials. Legal experts say that if a case is not fabricated but is declared so and charges are withdrawn, it could fall under this offense. The same logic applies in reverse. The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials is already investigating prosecutor Park under this provision. The law applies broadly, covering judges, prosecutors and others involved in criminal investigations, including senior officials who direct case handling.

Penalties include up to 10 years' imprisonment and suspension of qualifications, with a 10-year statute of limitations. In that sense, the law could serve as a safeguard against leniency toward those in power, at least in theory.

However, the provision also carries risks. Those charged under it could, in turn, accuse investigators, prosecutors or judges of the same offense, creating the possibility of an endless cycle of investigations and trials. While that scenario is problematic, it may still be preferable to a system in which crimes by those in power go unaddressed. It raises a difficult question about whether imperfect legal tools may still play a role in preserving accountability.

Ultimately, the situation highlights a broader concern. The idea that a law once criticized as flawed might now be relied upon to uphold justice suggests that the legal and political system is operating under considerable strain. The reliance on such measures points to a deeper sense that normal legal order is under pressure and that confidence in institutions is being tested.

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.