PPP Candidate Kim Tae-woo Challenges Supreme Court’s Retaliatory Ruling
Kim Tae-woo, the candidate from the People’s Power Party (PPP) vying for the mayoral position in Seoul’s Gangseo-gu, has made an impassioned plea for support, urging voters to pass judgment on the Supreme Court’s retaliatory ruling. In a far-reaching critique, Kim criticized the court’s apparent disregard for respect and emphasized the need for accountability through the power of the vote.
During the recent examination conducted by the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Kim Sang-hwan, Director of the Supreme Court’s Administration, was questioned by Representative Kwon Chil-seung of the Democratic Party of Korea. Kwon sought the candidate’s perspective and asked, “Should judgment be subjected to voting?” In response, Director Kim firmly replied, “I cannot.”
Unsatisfied with the answer, Representative Kwon probed further, demanding an explanation for the Supreme Court’s retaliation against Candidate Kim. To this, National Court Administration Director Kim explained, “The court would have issued judgments throughout the first, second, and third trials, even in the absence of any wrongdoing on Kim’s part.” He further emphasized that the court’s official stance requires a respectful demeanor from all parties involved.
When pressed on Kim’s claim of being deemed a public interest reporter, Director Kim affirmed, “That is indeed the court’s judgment.” This statement shed light on the legal classification of Kim as a non-public interest reporter, adding another layer of complexity to the ongoing controversy surrounding his candidacy.
Notably, Kim Tae-woo’s camp had previously asserted that the by-election served as a platform to scrutinize the Supreme Court’s “revenge ruling” against the public interest whistleblower, Kim Myeong-soo. This stance has sparked debate and drawn substantial attention to the election.
In response to the controversy, PPP lawmakers Park Hyeong-soo and Jang Dong-hyuk defended Kim’s opinion, emphasizing his identification as a public interest reporter. However, they acknowledged that the candidate’s subjective expression during the National Assembly examination, just a day before the by-election vote, created legal uncertainty. They also expressed their belief that such statements were inappropriate under these circumstances.
People’s Power Party candidate Kim Tae-woo, who is running in the by-election for mayor of Seoul’s Gangseo-gu, appealed for support to judge the Supreme Court’s retaliatory ruling by voting, criticizing the Supreme Court’s need to respect the ruling .
During the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s examination of the Supreme Court’s administration, Kim Sang-hwan, Director of the Supreme Court’s Administration, said in response to a question from Representative Kwon Chil-seung of the Democratic Party of Korea, who asked for the comments of the candidate Kim Tae-woo, “Is the judgment subject to voting judgment?” “I can’t,” he replied.
When Representative Kwon asked again, “What did the Supreme Court retaliate against Candidate Kim for?” National Court Administration Director Kim said, “All the first, second and third trials would have ruled without such a thing.” He added, “The official position of the court is that the judgment that said, “I ask you to have a respectful attitude.”
When Representative Kwon asked, “Applicant Kim claims to be a public interest reporter, but is it true that the court ruled that he is not a public interest reporter?”, Director Kim responded, ” That is the judgment of the court.”
Candidate Kim Tae-woo’s camp previously argued in a commentary on the 8th that “this by-election is an election to judge the Supreme Court’s ‘revenge ruling’ Kim Myeong-soo against the public interest whistleblower.”
In response to this, People Power Party lawmakers Park Hyeong-soo and Jang Dong-hyuk said, “Candidate Kim expressed his opinion because he considers himself a public interest reporter,” and “A day before the by-election vote , there was a legal dispute over the subjective expression of the candidate in the National Assembly examination.” “It’s inappropriate,” he noted.
#Kim #Taewoo #responds #revenge #judgment #theory #Judgments #subject #voting #judgment
