사법 독립과 법관의 책임 -독일 법 왜곡 사례 중심으로-

Article 7(1) of the Constitution stipulates that public officials are servants of the entire people and are accountable to them . Judges, as public officials, are therefore obliged to protect fundamental rights and safeguard the constitutional order. Accordingly, when judicial acts deviate from the standards of universal justice as recognized by society, judges must be held accountable. The Supreme Court’s remand decision in the case concerning Lee Jae-myung’s alleged violation of the Public Official Election Act not only infringed upon the fundamental rights of political expression and suffrage; but also restricted the people’s right to vote for a major presidential candidate, thereby undermining representative democracy. The fact that approximately 70,000 pages of electronic records were reviewed within only two days, coupled with the non-disclosure of access logs in the electronic document system, reveals procedural defects that violated procedural fairness and contravened the rule of law. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the president’s impeachment and during the acting presidency, the judiciary’s active intervention in the political sphere went beyond the bounds of judicial restraint, encroaching upon the inherent authority of the executive branch and the National Election Commission, and thus contravening the principle of separation of powers. This decision amplified public suspicion that the judiciary is not free from external political pressures or internal administrative influence and fundamentally eroded public trust in judicial independence. Judicial independence exists to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights and to ensure that the people can genuinely receive a fair trial. Therefore, when judges violate their constitutional duty to uphold the law and conscience, and thereby gravely infringe upon fundamental rights and universal justice, they must bear legal responsibility.