Democratic Party-Led Committee Demands Supreme Court Submit Lee Jae-myung Case Logs

The National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee, led by the Democratic Party of Korea, unilaterally passed a motion on the 15th de...

The National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee, led by the Democratic Party of Korea, unilaterally passed a motion on the 15th demanding the submission of documents related to judges’ and judicial researchers’ access records to case materials in connection with President Lee Jae-myung’s Public Official Election Act case last May. The People Power Party protested, calling it an attempt to “interfere in President Lee Jae-myung’s trial” and a “clear violation of the separation of powers.”

The committee convened a plenary session at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, ahead of an on-site audit that morning and passed the motion. Committee Chairperson Choo Mi-ae abruptly proposed and processed the motion, which was not on the original agenda. The Democratic Party has previously labeled the Supreme Court’s full bench decision in May—remanding President Lee’s case with a guilty recommendation—as a “judicial coup.”

Chairperson Choo’s motion demanded the submission of all records related to the full bench justices and research judges’ access to case materials. Specifically, it included: △the timing and method of each justice’s access to case records in the full bench; △the full system log of access to the case records’ electronic database; △all electronic record access and search histories outside the system log; △if records were accessed in written form, the loan and return records (including access logs); △copies of any internal guidelines (regulations, work standards, etc.) related to record access or review; and △details of changes or deletions to system logs since May 1 of this year.

The People Power Party strongly objected. Na Kyung-won, a People Power Party lawmaker, stated, “This is shameful and disheartening. How can you dismantle the constitutional order of the Republic of Korea like this?” She added, “Examining when a judicial researcher accessed records, how they sent reports, or under what titles—this is an attempt to interfere in the trial.” She emphasized, “Even if you are an elected power, you must exercise authority within the Constitution,” calling it a “riot disguised as legislative power.” Fellow party member Kwak Kyu-taek argued, “This is a clear attempt to interfere in an ongoing trial. We cannot agree to an illegal document request that exceeds the scope of the audit and undermines the separation of powers.”

The Democratic Party countered, “We must verify this directly.” Seo Young-kyo, a Democratic Party lawmaker, said, “We need to confirm whether the full bench properly reviewed the 70,000 pages of materials and whether they accessed the electronic records correctly.” Fellow party member Jang Kyung-tae added, “Beyond the justices, there are 10 research judges, referred to as the ‘Jo Hee-de special unit,’ and we have no way of knowing if they properly reviewed the case. We must naturally verify all case and log records—this is a legitimate exercise of legislative power.”

Ultimately, the Democratic Party ended the debate and proceeded to a vote. With 10 out of 17 members present voting in favor, the motion passed.

Separately, the committee, led by the Democratic Party, added Prosecutor Um Hee-jun—who was involved in the investigation into the Daejang-dong and Baekhyeon-dong allegations—and lawyer Nam Wook, related to the Daejang-dong case, as witnesses. Requests by the People Power Party to add Kim Hyun-ji, the First Deputy Chief of Staff to the Presidential Office, lawyer Seol Ju-wan, and lawmaker Choi Gisang were excluded.

Joo Jin-woo, a People Power Party lawmaker, protested, “Only Prosecutor Um and Lawyer Nam were approved, while Kim Hyun-ji, the Presidential Office’s First Deputy Chief of Staff, and Lawyer Seol Ju-wan—whom I requested yesterday—were excluded. Why are they being left out?” He added, “If the logic is to avoid trial interference, all should be excluded. How can this be so one-sided?”