Liberals vow judicial overhaul after court acquits Seoul mayor

The high court’s acquittal means Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon was cleared of the Political Funds Act charges brought against him. He is not facing a guilty verdict from that court, and his administration can continue without the immediate disruption of a conviction. The ruling does not prove that every political dispute around the case has ended.

The People Power Party, which Oh belongs to, welcomed the decision. Its lawmakers called the prosecution overreaching and urged the special counsel not to appeal. They said the case had disrupted Seoul’s governance and caused anxiety among residents. Oh’s opponents, however, viewed the ruling very differently. Democratic Party figures said it raised serious concerns about the judiciary.

The acquittal could still be challenged if prosecutors appeal to the Supreme Court. Until any appeal is resolved, the decision remains a major political victory for Oh. An observer said it could give him momentum to become a leading center-right figure and attract centrist voters.

The Democratic Party and its liberal allies said the ruling showed a need for judicial reform because they regarded it as legally and politically troubling. Party chair Kim Min-seok called the decision difficult to accept and warned that it had fueled public suspicion toward the judicial branch. Other lawmakers said the courts were failing to set themselves right.

Their criticism fits a wider conflict with Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de. The ruling party and a minor liberal opposition party have challenged the judiciary over justice nominations and a Supreme Court decision involving President Lee Jae Myung. Democratic supporters have accused Jo of leading a judicial coup. Cho Kuk called the acquittal a counterattack by a politicized judiciary.

The Democratic Party said it would reconsider the ruling before deciding its next step. The Rebuilding Korea Party is pressing for Jo’s impeachment and the abolition of the National Court Administration. The dispute could intensify pressure on the judiciary, although immediate impeachment was not promised.

If prosecutors appeal, Oh Se-hoon’s acquittal would not be the final word in the case. The Supreme Court would examine the challenged ruling, generally focusing on legal issues rather than repeating the entire trial. That means Oh could keep operating as mayor while the appeal proceeds, but the legal uncertainty would continue.

The article does not state whether prosecutors will appeal. People Power Party chair Jang Dong-hyeok urged the special counsel not to take that step, citing President Lee Jae Myung’s criticism of prosecutors who charge innocent people and keep appealing. Another PPP spokesperson called the acquittal a relief after what he described as an overreaching prosecution.

The Supreme Court could uphold the acquittal, leaving Oh cleared, or identify a legal problem and send the case back for further proceedings. The appeal would also prolong the political battle. Supporters of judicial reform could treat it as another test of the courts, while Oh could use the victory to build political momentum.

The article states that an impeachment motion requires at least 100 sponsors in South Korea’s National Assembly. This is the minimum number of lawmakers needed to formally introduce the motion. It does not mean impeachment automatically succeeds; it only establishes the sponsorship threshold described in the report.

The Rebuilding Korea Party unveiled a motion targeting Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de. Because the party needs 100 lawmakers behind it asked the Democratic Party to provide support. Party founder Cho Kuk said Jo should be impeached as part of a stronger judicial reform effort. Rebuilding Korea Party chair Shin Chang-sik also urged the liberal bloc to act quickly.

The Democratic Party did not immediately connect the acquittal directly to Jo’s impeachment. Its spokesperson said the party would first reexamine the court ruling and decide its next step. Therefore, the threshold is clear, but the article does not establish whether the motion has secured enough sponsors or what lawmakers will do next.

The National Court Administration, or NCA, is the body responsible for central administration within South Korea’s court system. The article does not describe its exact structure or powers, but it presents the NCA as an institution that liberal politicians want removed during judicial reform. Abolishing it would therefore change how the judiciary is managed, not simply overturn one verdict.

Cho Kuk said reforms had failed because the NCA had not been abolished and Jo Hee-de had not been impeached. Shin Chang-sik made the same demand, arguing that ending the NCA was necessary for fairness to take root. Their criticism forms part of a broader claim that the judiciary under Jo has been too lenient toward conservative figures.

The article does not establish that the NCA caused the acquittal or prove that it controls individual rulings. It shows instead that politicians see the institution as connected to wider concerns about judicial power and accountability. Whether abolition advances depends on political support, especially from the Democratic Party.

South Korea’s judiciary is supposed to decide cases according to law, not instructions from political parties. Independence protects judges from pressure by governing or opposition politicians. It also allows courts to review powerful officials and parties. The article does not give a detailed constitutional explanation, but its political conflict shows why this principle matters.

After Oh Se-hoon’s acquittal, Democratic lawmakers said the ruling created public suspicion and might reflect political motivation. Their allies accused Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de of leading a judicial coup. On the other side, the People Power Party said the special counsel had overreached and disrupted Seoul’s government. Each camp presented the courts as failing in a different direction.

That clash makes independence politically controversial. Criticism can demand accountability, but pressure to impeach a chief justice or abolish the NCA can also be portrayed as interference. The article leaves unresolved whether the ruling was politically motivated. It shows that competing claims about fairness are driving the reform debate.

A court victory can raise a politician’s profile, especially when the case has become part of a national fight over the judiciary. Oh Se-hoon’s acquittal lets him continue running Seoul without the disruption associated with the prosecution. It also gives the People Power Party a result it can present as vindication against what it calls an overreaching special counsel.

The article identifies the key mechanism: voters who are moving away from President Lee Jae Myung’s administration may shift toward Oh instead. Political commentator Lee Jong-hoon said many centrists who had supported Lee through the “New Lee Jae Myung movement” had become undecided. The ruling could give Oh credibility and momentum among those voters.

That possibility threatens the Democratic Party as it tries to win centrists. Lee said Oh could become the new face of a center-right bloc, making his influence grow significantly. The article does not say Oh has secured that role, but it describes the acquittal as an unfavorable development for the Democratic Party.