Reason why I can't reject a dedicated court of rebellion

<Reason why I can't reject a dedicated court of rebellion>

1. The judiciary has already broken its own random dividend principle.

The core argument against the establishment of a court exclusively responsible for insurrection is the principle of random dividends. However, the reality is the opposite.

The case of former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who was first prosecuted, was designated as an 'important case that needs to be dealt with in a timely manner'. Naturally, it had to be allocated to one of the six dedicated courts dealing with corruption and public safety cases. However, the court excluded all of them and allocated them to the court in charge of food and health. It is a court that has nothing to do with the civil war case.

Since then, key defendants such as Yoon Suk Yeol and Roh Sang-won have been allocated to the same court in the name of 'related cases'. Is this a random dividend? It is an intentional dividend.

It is incoherent that the judiciary has destroyed the principles on its own and now opposes the dedicated court on the basis of the principle of "random dividends."

2. The current judiciary has no intention of revealing the nature of the civil war.

The court rejected the warrant twice for former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae, saying, "We cannot judge the illegality of the December 3 civil war," and "There is room for dispute." It also rejected the warrant for Prime Minister Han Duck-soo.

The Minister of Justice is a member of the State Council who should advise the administration of the rule of law and protect the basic rights of the people. Nevertheless, he sympathized with the civil war even after seeing the declaration of illegal martial law, convened a meeting of senior Justice Ministry officials and had a meeting with his subordinate prosecutor write a document that misled the legitimacy of martial law even after the martial law was lifted.

Nevertheless, if the warrant is dismissed because "there is room for dispute," it does not understand the nature of the civil war or turns a blind eye.

3. The court has become a space to neglect the brutality of the prisoners of war.

Defendants in a civil war are busy making excuses and passing the buck in court. The former prosecutor general tried to pass the buck to his subordinate, saying, "Would I have ordered the arrest without a warrant?" Yoon Suk Yeol, a former prosecutor general, tried to pass the buck to his subordinate.

All those who once commanded the nation are seen in court is shamelessness. However, Judge Ji Gwi-yeon constantly tightens his head and is dragged around by the rebellion criminals and their lawyers as if he is trying to soothe them. He also apologizes to those who are verbally abusing and attacking them.

It has become not a space where the court implements justice, but a stage where rebellion criminals drag their feet.

4. Time is on the side of the insurrectionists.
A year has passed, and not a single person has been punished. The warrant continues to be dismissed, and the trial is sluggish.

As time passes, the shock of 12.3 becomes less severe. The fear that people felt that night and the sense of crisis that democracy could collapse disappeared. Rather, the forces of the rebellion are raising their heads and shouting, "Civil War, stop teasing me, I'm tired of it."

Justice cannot be realized unless a prompt and clear trial is made.

5. A fair trial is impossible under Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae.

The public has already lost confidence in Cho Hee-dae's judiciary. Watching the repeated rejection of warrants and lukewarm proceedings of trials, he has doubts that "the judiciary is also on the same side with the forces of civil war." The national community cannot stand upright as soon as collective ethics collapses.  

Under the leadership of Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, who was appointed by a rebel group, the justice department has lost credibility by blatantly refusing to restore collective ethics. Before it is too late, a justice department exclusively responsible for insurrection should be set up.

6. Concerns about suspension of trial are a technical problem that can be solved.

If a constitutional petition or trial on the constitutionality of a law that establishes a court exclusively responsible for civil war is filed, the criminal trial for civil war will be suspended. However, this is a problem that can be sufficiently solved.

By amending the Constitutional Court Act, it is sufficient to specify that the criminal trial will not be suspended even if an unconstitutional legal trial is filed for the crime of civil war and foreign exchange that destroyed the constitutional order. The amendment has already been prepared.

These exceptions are consistent with the spirit of the Constitution. The Constitution does not recognize the privilege of criminal prosecution for crimes of civil war and foreign exchange. This is because civil war and foreign exchange are acts of national crimes that deny the Constitution itself. It is a natural logical consequence for the Constitution to exclude the suspension of trial for crimes that exclude even the privilege of criminal prosecution.  

7. The legislature must fulfill its responsibilities as a defender of the Constitution.

The legislature has the responsibility to impose sanctions on the anti-ethical and mechanical rule of law of the current judiciary and design a trial system to restore collective ethics and collective compliance. It is a legitimate act of legislation to restore constitutional order.  

A court dedicated to civil war is not an option but a necessity. It should be set up before it is too late.