식민사법의 후손, 조희대 사법부의 몰염치 [박용현 칼럼]

The 1919 3·1 Movement was held, and the courtroom trials intended to prevent Japanese's bloodshed were unable to do so. However, countless suspects arrested during that time did not face guilty verdicts and were not subjected to imprisonment. This type of event was unimaginable in colonial Korea. In Japan, from 1928 to 1943, a jury system was implemented, yet it was a deceptive form of jury trial designed to mimic democratic governance.

Judges could disregard the judgments of jury members. Despite this fraudulent jury system not being permitted in the colonies, it was not tolerated. In 1919, Japanese Chief Justice discussed the opposition to jury trials, stating that if a protest like 3·1 Movement were to occur again, they would need to implement the jury system.

This episode demonstrates that the legal modernization in the Japanese colonial era was merely superficial, as it served to support colonial rule and made the Korean people the object of governance rather than its subjects. Even after independence, the "concept of colonial law" has persistently endured. During the Allied occupation, Japan attempted to introduce judicial democratization, establishing a system where criminal investigations are reviewed by citizens and the Supreme Court judges are subject to a national vote.

However, the Supreme Court judges still maintain a sense of superiority and do not consider the legal common sense of the nation. The Yangyang Incident is the most glaring manifestation of this colonial legal legacy. The Yangyang Incident highlighted the dominance and arrogance of the colonial legal system. The Yangyang Incident raises the question of what difference there is between colonial legal officials and the emperor, eliciting a sense of despair.