Victory for Lee Jae-myung, Han Duck-soo

Home > Opinion > Columns

Victory for Lee Jae-myung, Han Duck-soo

Published: 28 Mar. 2025, 00:02

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Kang Ju-an

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

Democratic Party (DP) leader Lee Jae-myung and acting President Han Duck-soo each claimed a victory this week. Lee was acquitted on appeal in a case involving violations of the Public Official Election Act, overturning an earlier guilty verdict. Han, meanwhile, saw the Constitutional Court dismiss an impeachment motion against him on March 24. Both men welcomed the outcomes, but a closer look reveals little cause for celebration.

The appellate court's ruling on Lee sharply diverged from the lower court's judgment, particularly regarding remarks he made about Kim Moon-ki — the late head of development at Seongnam Development Corporation and a key figure in the Daejang-dong scandal who died by suicide during the investigation.

Lee had said: “The People Power Party released a photo with four people, implying I played golf. But when I looked into it, it turned out to be a cropped part of a group photo. That’s manipulation.”

Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, center, in Seoul High Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on March 26. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

The lower court interpreted Lee’s statement as denying that he played golf with Kim during an overseas trip. However, the appeals court found room to interpret Lee’s words differently: that the photo itself had been doctored, and therefore did not show him golfing with Kim. Just as the two courts reached starkly different conclusions, the public is likely to come away with their own interpretations.

Regardless of the verdict, the trial spotlighted an uncomfortable issue: Lee did, in fact, play golf with Kim and another official during a 2015 business trip to Australia — yet he later claimed not to remember Kim at all. This discrepancy will continue to fuel questions about Lee’s integrity and ethical standards, beyond the courtroom’s legal conclusions.

Acting President Han returned to work after the Constitutional Court rejected the impeachment motion against him. While he avoided dismissal, five of the justices concluded that Han had violated both the Constitution and the National Public Service Law. Four of the five, however, determined that the infraction did not warrant removal from office.

Acting President Han Duck-soo speaks during a meeting with Cabinet members at the government complex in central Seoul on March 24. [YONHAP]

The Constitutional Court justices are appointed in equal numbers by the president, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and the National Assembly, reflecting a balance of powers. Han faced impeachment after refusing to appoint three justices selected by the National Assembly.

At the time, only six justices were serving — one short of the seven needed to begin deliberations on President Yoon Suk Yeol’s own impeachment case. Han insisted that “bipartisan agreement” was necessary before appointing the Assembly's picks. But in the context of a tense impeachment battle, that condition was widely viewed as a de facto rejection.

When Han was impeached, then acting President Choi Sang-mok stepped in and appointed two of the three pending nominees — Justices Cho Han-chang and Jeong Gye-seon — allowing deliberations on President Yoon’s case to begin. However, the appointment of the third nominee, Ma Eun-hyeok, was withheld. When the Constitutional Court was asked to weigh in, it unanimously ruled that all three Assembly-nominated justices should be appointed.

But Choi, too, withheld the final appointment. From that moment, the credibility of the Constitutional Court began to erode. Of the two nominees proposed by the DP, only Jeong was appointed, for reasons that remain unclear. Ma was left in limbo.

With Han’s return, the authority to appoint the final justice reverted to him. The rationale for delaying Ma’s appointment has now evaporated — yet Han still refuses to act. Perhaps he believes that leaving Ma in limbo works to the advantage of President Yoon and the ruling PPP. That has led to speculation that if a ruling on Yoon’s impeachment is not issued before April 18 — when Justices Moon Hyung-bae and Lee Mi-seon are set to retire — the court will again lack the quorum needed to proceed. In that scenario, Yoon would remain suspended, and Han would continue governing in his place.

Would the DP simply stand by? The opposition, which exposed a constitutional loophole to launch its bold impeachment bid, is unlikely to overlook the fact that Constitutional Court justices themselves are subject to impeachment under Article 65 of the Constitution. Even if Han were to appoint replacements for Moon and Lee, he could face yet another impeachment motion. If passed, it could once again bring the court below the quorum threshold, paralyzing its ability to issue rulings.

In that sense, Han himself may have penned the first chapter of this grim scenario.

Lee and Han may take fleeting comfort in their respective courtroom victories. But the public is mired in despair and disillusionment. Regardless of how Yoon’s impeachment trial ends, the people are likely to be left with an enduring sense of defeat.

Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.