The Constitutional Court’s decision on a constitutional complaint after four years has led the court to reiterate on the 21st that it will examine whether basic rights have been violated.
Seoul Central District Court Criminal Appeals Division 50 (Presiding Judge Jeon Bo-seong) held an appellate trial for Tongil TV representative Mr. Jin, charged with violating the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act, and stated, “Although the Constitutional Court has made a decision, there remains a need for the Constitutional Court to clarify whether constitutional basic rights have been violated.”
Mr. Jin was indicted in 2018 for allegedly importing North Korean books and Rodong Sinmun into South Korea without approval from the Ministry of Unification. In 2022, he was fined 3 million Korean won in the first trial. Mr. Jin appealed the first trial’s ruling and filed a constitutional complaint against the relevant legal provisions. The appellate court suspended the trial in July of that year and awaited the Constitutional Court’s judgment for over four years.
As the conclusion remained unresolved for years, the court sent a request to the Constitutional Court in June asking for an explanation of the progress and reasons for the delay. However, when the Constitutional Court did not respond, the court stated, “Leaving the defendant in a state where guilt or innocence is undetermined for an extended period may violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial,” and announced it would review whether the Constitutional Court’s delay in adjudication is unconstitutional.
The Constitutional Court decided on the 17th, four years after Mr. Jin filed the constitutional complaint, that the provision was constitutional, stating, “The government needs to manage the import of North Korean materials according to certain criteria.”
However, the court stated that day, “The issue is procedural, and we are pointing this out—not judging based on whether the provision is constitutional or unconstitutional,” emphasizing that the problem of the Constitutional Court’s delayed adjudication has not been resolved.
The court also displayed a presentation (PPT) in the courtroom to explain the issue to the defendant and the prosecution. The court said, “Some may argue that since the provision was deemed constitutional, the ruling should follow accordingly, but the original issue was not about whether the law was violated,” and added, “We are examining whether the Constitutional Court properly followed basic procedures.” It further noted, “While courts have appeal deadlines, the Constitutional Court has no time restrictions,” and pointed out, “We gave the Constitutional Court an opportunity to explain why the adjudication was delayed, but it did not provide an explanation.”
The court plans to hold one more trial session on November 9 and then designate a sentencing date.
jasdooit 
Leave a comment