A South Korean appellate court has postponed the retrial of opposition presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung on election law charges until after the June vote, drawing criticism from legal experts and political opponents who claim the judiciary may have been influenced by political pressure.
The Seoul High Court assigned the case on May 2 and initially scheduled the first hearing for May 15, issuing a summons to Lee. However, on May 7, just 40 minutes after Lee’s legal team filed a request for a change in schedule, the court delayed the hearing to June 18—less than two weeks after the election.
Legal analysts expressed concern over the timing and swift reversal. Some say the delay could raise questions about the court’s independence, while others criticized political parties for applying undue pressure.
The Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) and the Rebuilding Korea Party (RKP), which back Lee, announced on May 7 that they would hold a hearing for Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de on May 14, accusing the judiciary of interfering in the presidential race following a May 1 Supreme Court ruling related to Lee’s case.
Both parties have criticized the court’s initial decision to schedule a hearing during the official campaign period. The RKP alleged potential bias by pointing to prior affiliations of the presiding judges, including links to figures in President Yoon Suk-yeol’s administration. At a May 6 press conference, the party said such connections might create an appearance of political alignment, though no formal evidence of misconduct has been presented.
DPK lawmaker Park Jie-won said during a radio interview that the party had requested the delay and warned of possible impeachment proceedings if the court did not act by May 12.
Despite the political statements, several legal experts said it is rare to see such public pressure directed at the judiciary. “Even during past authoritarian governments, the courts tended to resist executive pressure,” said one senior prosecutor. “This kind of open influence from the legislature is unusual.”
Some legal observers also questioned the court’s initial decision to set a hearing during the campaign period, noting Lee’s candidacy had already been confirmed. A former judge said the court may have sought to avoid appearing confrontational toward a leading candidate. “After the backlash over the holiday, the court likely reconsidered the optics,” the judge said.
Uncertainty remains over whether the June 18 hearing will proceed if Lee is elected. Under Article 84 of South Korea’s Constitution, a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted except in cases of insurrection or treason, which could lead to legal challenges over how to handle the case post-election.
“The court may choose to delay further, given the constitutional ambiguity,” said another senior judge. “Scheduling a trial so soon after the vote may not resolve the controversy.”
Observers say that regardless of the outcome, public confidence in the judiciary could be affected. “Even if the case resumes and a verdict is reached after the election, it may be difficult to convince the public that the ruling was free from political influence,” said a legal analyst.
