The Constitutional Court of South Korea has unanimously voted to reject the impeachment of interior minister Lee Sang-min. The impeachment motion was initiated by the National Assembly, primarily controlled by the opposition Democratic Party, in the aftermath of last year’s crowd-crush incident in Itaewon that resulted in 159 fatalities. This ruling was issued 167 days after the impeachment motion was passed and 269 days after the crowd-crush incident. The key issues considered by the court were whether Lee had adequately executed his duties concerning public safety to prevent the tragedy and whether the government’s response was appropriate.
The justices noted Lee’s previous statement that there was not a large enough crowd in Itaewon to be particularly concerned about. He later asserted that dispatching more emergency service personnel could not have prevented the crowd crush incident. The remarks drew swift condemnation from Democratic Party lawmakers, who interpreted the statement as an evasion of responsibility. Four out of nine justices ruled his comment violated Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, which mandates that public officials maintain dignity. However, the justices unanimously agreed that the remark was not a sufficient basis for dismissal from office.
The Constitutional Court of South Korea has unanimously voted to reject the impeachment of interior minister Lee Sang-min. The impeachment motion was initiated by the National Assembly, primarily controlled by the opposition Democratic Party, in the aftermath of last year’s crowd-crush incident in Itaewon that resulted in 159 fatalities. This ruling was issued 167 days after the impeachment motion was passed and 269 days after the crowd-crush incident. The key issues considered by the court were whether Lee had adequately executed his duties concerning public safety to prevent the tragedy and whether the government’s response was appropriate.
The justices noted Lee’s previous statement that there was not a large enough crowd in Itaewon to be particularly concerned about. He later asserted that dispatching more emergency service personnel could not have prevented the crowd crush incident. The remarks drew swift condemnation from Democratic Party lawmakers, who interpreted the statement as an evasion of responsibility. Four out of nine justices ruled his comment violated Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, which mandates that public officials maintain dignity. However, the justices unanimously agreed that the remark was not a sufficient basis for dismissal from office.
Get 30 days
of free access to
KoreaPro
-
Full access to all analysis
-
The KOREA PRO newsletter, every business day
-
Daily analysis on the top story of the day
-
The ability to suggest topics for coverage by our specialist team
Be smart about South Korea
Get full access to expert analysis and opinion.
Start
now
No charges during your trial. Cancel anytime. A paid subscription will start after 30 days.
© Korea Risk Group. All rights reserved.
No part of this content may be reproduced, distributed, or used for
commercial purposes without prior written permission from Korea Risk
Group.