Expanded dismissal grounds raise questions about president's trials

The Democratic Party (DP) has introduced a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act that would not only abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigative authority but also expand the grounds on which courts may dismiss indictments. Eliminating supplementary investigations despite concerns that it could harm socially vulnerable victims is troubling enough. More controversial, however, is the proposed amendment to Article 327, which governs dismissals of indictments. The party argues that the bill merely codifies principles already recognized in Supreme Court precedent. Opposition parties and many legal experts, however, question whether it amounts to tailor-made legislation designed to eliminate President Lee Jae Myung's legal risks.

Those concerns are not without basis. The ruling party has consistently argued that the cases involving President Lee resulted from fabricated investigations and politically motivated prosecutions. It previously sought to cancel the indictments through a special counsel, but that effort encountered legal and political obstacles while public resistance became increasingly evident, including in the recent Seoul mayoral election. The latest bill instead adds two new grounds for dismissing an indictment: when charges stem from a "seriously unlawful" investigation or when prosecutors have "clearly abused" their prosecutorial discretion.

Current law limits dismissals to six objective procedural defects, such as invalid indictment procedures. By introducing subjective standards such as "seriously" and "clearly," the amendment would grant judges substantially broader discretion in politically sensitive cases. Critics argue that this could encourage inconsistent or arbitrary rulings. More importantly, while prosecutors may withdraw an indictment only before a verdict is delivered, courts may dismiss an indictment even during appellate proceedings. As a result, the proposed provisions could potentially apply to all of the criminal cases involving Lee.

The DP has already pushed through legislation significantly expanding the number of Supreme Court justices. With Chief Justice Jo Hee-de's term ending next June, Lee is expected to appoint the next chief justice as well as 22 Supreme Court justices during his presidency. That means he will help shape the very court that could ultimately rule on cases involving him. If broader grounds for dismissing indictments are added to that institutional change, any future ruling favorable to the president would almost inevitably deepen public division, regardless of its legal merits.

It would also damage the president's own standing if changes to the law were widely perceived as serving the interests of the nation's leader. If, as the DP insists, this legislation is intended to improve the justice system rather than benefit any particular individual, it should suspend its unilateral push. Should the bill pass the National Assembly after the filibuster ends, President Lee should exercise his constitutional veto power. Doing so would reaffirm judicial independence, ease public suspicion and strengthen the legitimacy of his administration.