A Citizen’s Call for the Highest Constitutional Standards in Judging Crimes Against the Republic.

 

A Citizen’s Call for the Highest Constitutional Standards in Judging Crimes Against the Republic.

The upcoming first-instance verdict in the ongoing insurrection case is not merely a matter of determining an individual’s sentence.

This trial constitutes a constitutional judgment that will determine whether the Republic of Korea possesses the will to defend its constitutional order, or whether it will once again fall silent in the face of unlawful power.

The Constitution of the Republic of Korea declares in Article 1 that the nation is a “democratic republic,” and Articles 66, 69, and 76 make clear that all state authority is bound by the Constitution.

Thus, any act that destroys the constitutional order is not simply a violation of the Criminal Act—it is an attack on the Constitution itself.

Articles 87 and 90 of the Criminal Act prescribe the highest level of statutory punishment for insurrection and for those who lead or command such acts.

This legislative choice reflects the recognition that crimes against the constitutional order are constitutional crimes, fundamentally distinct from ordinary criminal offenses.

The Constitutional Court of Korea has repeatedly affirmed that the destruction of the constitutional order constitutes a grave offense that threatens the very foundation of the national community.

Accordingly, the judiciary bears a constitutional duty to reflect this legislative and constitutional intent faithfully in its rulings.

Although the Republic of Korea is regarded internationally as a nation that has effectively abolished the death penalty in practice,

this reality concerns the execution of punishment, not the judiciary’s constitutional responsibility to determine the gravity of a crime.

The question of execution belongs to the executive branch,

but the determination of a crime’s constitutional weight belongs solely to the judiciary.

Therefore, the sentence rendered in this case will function not merely as punishment for an individual,

but as a constitutional declaration of how the Republic of Korea evaluates the threat posed by crimes that seek to overthrow the constitutional order.

If the court chooses to narrow or avoid the highest standards permitted by law,

the verdict will be remembered not as a legal decision,

but as evidence of a failure of constitutional guardianship.

Such a ruling would not reflect judicial independence,

but judicial abdication.

Conversely, if the court upholds the essential values of the constitutional order,

its judgment will become a foundational text of Korean democracy—

a historical testament that the judiciary stood as the final guardian of the Constitution.

On the judge’s desk today lies not merely the fate of one defendant,

but the dignity and future viability of the constitutional order of the Republic of Korea.