The Supreme Court has decided to remand the case of Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party of Korea presidential candidate, with a guilty disposition, leading to discussions regarding controversies that have arisen both inside and outside the court. An extraordinary meeting of the National Judges' Representative Conference will be held on the 26th to address these matters. The conference is an organization where judges from various courts discuss judicial administration and provide recommendations to the Chief Justice.

Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court. /Courtesy of Yonhap News Agency

The National Judges' Representative Conference (Chairperson Kim Yea-young, Director General of the Seoul Southern District Court) announced on the 9th through a summons notice to nationwide judges that "the 2nd extraordinary meeting of the 2025 National Judges' Representative Conference will be held on the 26th from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. in Lecture Room 13 of the Judicial Research and Training Institute."

This meeting will be conducted with both online participation and in-person attendance. The agenda will include discussions on concerns about "the risk of undermining judicial trust and judicial independence triggered by the Supreme Court's ruling." The National Judges' Representative Conference stated, "Members accounting for more than one-fifth expressed the need to discuss and clarify their stance on issues regarding doubts about the political neutrality of the courts and the erosion of trust in the judiciary, which led to the request for the convening of this extraordinary meeting."

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's en banc hearing overturned the second trial's acquittal in Lee Jae-myung's election law violation case on the 1st, remanding it to the Seoul High Court with a guilty disposition.

Following this, claims arose within and outside the court and in the political arena that Chief Justice Cho Hue-daek expedited the examination and handling of the case unusually quickly, thus intervening in the presidential election. Conversely, there were also opinions that such claims infringe upon judicial independence.