Posted May. 09, 2005 23:29,
On May 9, Justice Minister Kim Seung-kyu harshly criticized the draft of a revised criminal procedure law bill by the Presidential Commission on Judicial Reform (PCJR) by saying that the draft is not balanced between guaranteeing the human rights of an accused and maintaining the social order, and that it is a strange law that does not let public forces punish a criminal.
It appears that complications between the prosecution and the PCJR will deepen because only one week after Minister Kim and Co-Chairman Han Seung-hun agreed to resolve tensions, the minister directly criticized a bill by the PCJR.
In an MBC radio program titled Son Seok-hees Focus of Eyes, Minister Kim made no secret of his sheer criticism of the revised bill by saying that if the revised bill by the PCJR is confirmed, without supplementary measures, including plea bargaining, penalties for making false statements, and obstruction of justice, Korea, where people often lie in a court, will see its social order and security collapse.
Regarding the Cheong Wa Dae statement that in response to the backlash from some prosecutors over the bill by the PCJR, it will respond in accordance with the law and principle, Minister Kim supported the prosecutors by saying, those prosecutors dont intend to oppose national policy or keep vested rights, and they just expressed their opinions out of loyalty to the nation, thinking how could social order possibly be maintained under the new bill?.
Meanwhile, the PCJR held a vice-minister level meeting in which it deliberated over the revised bill of the Criminal Procedure Code, a plan to introduce a law school, and a mixed jury system and the civil participatory system, and a measure to expand the procedure in which an accuser request a judgment in case a prosecutor reject a case by an accuser.
The PCJR established new provisions in which if witnesses dont appear in court without good reason, they can be subject police custody or detainment in prison within seven days as a complementary measure for the denial of a protocol as evidence if the accused denies protocol in a court and arranged another supplementary measure in which the accused could be punished, if the accused makes different statements in court from those he or she made in an investigation for perjury.