"Musical Ha" gaffe judge worked at same court as defendant N Gyeongju's lawyer... "Dereliction of duty" also condemned by legal professionals [★FOCUS]

*This content was translated by AI.

In the trial for sexual assault of a student by musical actor N Gyeongju (62), the court has sparked outrage by invoking "musical arguments." This is nothing less than the grim reality of South Korea's 21st-century judiciary, where low gender sensitivity and victim-centered principles have vanished.

Earlier on the morning of the 26th, the Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court Criminal Consolidated Division No. 29 (Presiding Judge Eom Gi-pyo (Director)) held the first pre-trial hearing for N Gyeongju, who is accused of sexual relations with a subordinate. Since defendants are not required to appear at pre-trial hearings, N Gyeongju was absent.

Originally assigned to Criminal Division No. 13 for solo trial by a single judge, the court reassigned the case to a consolidated division through a financial consolidation procedure. Financial consolidation is a process where the court changes a case originally handled by one judge into a case handled jointly by three judges based on the nature of the case.

On this day, N Gyeongju's side and victim A clashed over whether to proceed with a citizen participation trial.

The legal representative for victim A stated, "The defendant argues as if this case should go to a citizen participation trial by principle, but we (the victims) do not think so. Just as the defendant has the right to request a citizen participation trial, the will of the crime victim must also be respected. We hope the court will carefully consider whether this case should be referred to a citizen participation trial. The reason the victim cannot help but worry is that it appears the (defendant) intends to evade the judge's judgment by going to a jury trial." He emphasized his opposition.

He continued, "Furthermore, since this was originally a solo case, why does only this one go to a financial consolidation division and then to a citizen participation trial? We hope the court will carefully consider this. We wish for respect for sexual assault victims." He raised doubts.

On the other hand, N Gyeongju's legal representative said, "We will express our desire for a citizen participation trial." He added, "First, as the victim's lawyer mentioned, we fully respect the defendant's reasons for wishing to exclude a citizen participation trial. However, while this is indeed a sexual assault case, it is more about whether there was a subordinate-supervisor relationship between the defendant and the victim rather than a general threat or coercion case. The influence the victim claims the defendant had over her is too vague and abstract. We question whether the defendant could exert specific influence over the victim and plan to focus arguments on this point. We intend to concentrate on questions about what kind of relationship existed between the defendant and the victim at the time, objectively, rather than secondary victimization or questions that induce shame. This is a case where we wish to be evaluated based on common sense and social norms judged by citizens." He raised his voice.

The court accepted N Gyeongju's side's opinion. Regarding the reason, even N Gyeongju applied for a citizen participation trial "with his whole life at stake." The court explained, "As a result of deliberation, while it is true that the citizen participation trial system has structural limitations in fully protecting victims as the victim's side claims, the defendant also applied for a citizen participation trial with his entire life at stake. Therefore, we decided to accept the opinion of the defense counsel."

This clearly showed the disappearance of victim-centered principles. The court minimized the victim's concern about secondary victimization to "structural limitations." Furthermore, it equated the defendant's acceptance of reputation risk with the "existence of sexual assault victims," pushing the judiciary's basic duty of "protecting the victim's personality rights" to a lower priority—a farce.

The court's contradictions did not end there. Judge Eom Gi-pyo (Director) told the victim's side, "We can install a screen so you do not face the defendant directly. If it is too burdensome, we can also remove the defendant from the courtroom."

However, even while aware of the psychological pressure the victim would endure, Presiding Judge Eom immediately offered sophistry: "In citizen participation trials before jurors, persuading jurors is important, so I think both sides should have autonomy in how they persuade. Even if they use their expertise to perform musicals, it would be perfectly fine. Whether they perform a musical or in any other form, we intend to allow it."

Presiding Judge Eom's shocking remarks led to laughter from N Gyeongju's legal representative, lawyer Lee Kang-ho of law firm Barun. In a serious courtroom where the victim's dignity was at stake, lawyer Lee Kang-ho's laughter demonstrated the grim state of the court.

On the other hand, the victim's side's lawyer firmly pointed out the compromised seriousness of the courtroom: "We will testify as we are. Musical references are not part of this."

Moreover, Presiding Judge Eom immediately asked N Gyeongju's legal representative, "(For future trials) Has it been decided that broadcast video recording will take place? Sometimes video recording proceeds; is that okay?" N Gyeongju's legal representative replied, "We will follow the presiding judge's decision. (N Gyeongju) hopes to proceed even if he has to endure exposure of his reputation or this part."

Presiding Judge Eom then turned to the prosecutor and asked a question implying, "Is it okay to appear on broadcast?" This further muddied the courtroom atmosphere. The prosecutor responded with a nervous laugh, clearly showing how lightly the court treated conduct in a sexual assault case.

This is another instance where Judge Eom Gi-pyo (Director) has shown his fundamental attitude of treating a sexual assault trial as a "musical show." Even when viewed against the judiciary's usual standard of excluding citizen participation trials in sexual assault cases, this decision is an incomprehensible act that undermines common sense and principles.

Doubts also follow within the legal community. Lawyer Lee Eun-ui of Lee Eun-ui Law Firm told StarNews, "The court accepting a citizen participation trial is packaged as the defendant's 'right to defense' with an objective, neutral attitude, but in reality, it is no different from telling victims to endure 'concerns about secondary victimization' for the defendant's human rights. This is clearly dereliction of duty and carelessness by the court. I must ask again whether this is fair or just. Judges certainly have a duty to protect not only the defendant's rights but also the victim's rights. If the defendant's side wants to be judged on whether there was a protective-supervisory relationship, I must ask again if that can only be done through a citizen participation trial. Why doesn't the judge's judgment apply?" he stated.

The lawyer added, "There are judges who listen without prejudice to the rights and demands of perpetrators based on the presumption of innocence. However, while this may seem like great human rights realization, it is neither human rights nor justice. Ultimately, it forces victims to understand, but this is not a problem for victims to endure; it is an absolute duty for judges to coordinate and respect. Yet, the current situation is that the court is placing burdens on victims' shoulders. This goes against the times and the spirit of the age. Demanding acts contrary to victims' interests by citing defendants' human rights is difficult to justify with any plausible reason. Forcing a citizen participation trial when the victim does not want it is nothing less than a tilted playing field from the start. The problem is that this behavior is not limited to this case alone." He pointed out sharply.

Amidst the controversy over the court's gaffe, the sexual assault case involving N Gyeongju's student will proceed as a citizen participation trial on November 27 and 30. A citizen participation trial is a system where citizens participate as jurors in criminal trials to determine guilt or innocence and provide sentencing opinions. The jury's opinion has no legal binding force but only advisory effect.

Earlier, last December, N Gyeongju was accused of sexually assaulting his student A at a location in Seoul Seocho-gu. It is reported that A called 112 immediately after the incident. At the time, N Gyeongju denied the allegations during police investigation, but the police determined the allegations were credible and transferred the case to the Prosecution Service.

A's legal representative at the pre-trial hearing revealed, "(N Gyeongju) sent a KakaoTalk message containing an apology to the victim. He said he could not send it via email, so he sent an apology letter with an attachment file through KakaoTalk. He admitted to the criminal facts of this case and will submit it as evidence." This drew attention.

Meanwhile, Judge Eom Gi-pyo (Director) is from the 31st Judicial Training Institute cohort, while N Gyeongju's legal representative, lawyer Lee Kang-ho of Barun, is from the 33rd cohort. Lawyer Lee Kang-ho, formerly a judge, worked alongside Judge Eom Gi-pyo (Director) at Seoul Central District Court in 2018. At that time, Judge Eom handled Criminal Division No. 13, while former Judge Lee Kang-ho handled Criminal Division No. 18.

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.