(EDITORIAL from Korea JoongAng Daily on Oct. 26)

Rising tensions within South Korea's ruling Democratic Party (DP) call for the impeachment of Chief Justice Jo Hee-de have grown following an appeals court ruling that acquitted Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon on charges of violating the Political Funds Act. In the wake of this decision, DP Supreme Council member Han Min-soo claimed there was another reason to impeach Jo on social media.

Fellow Supreme Council member Choi Min-hee echoed his sentiment, warning that failing to act would lead to retaliation. DP leader Kim Min-seok has not been as vocal about impeachment but has raised the possibility of a parliamentary investigation. These calls for impeachment have led to misleading statements suggesting that the chief justice had a hand in the appeals court's decision.

The fact remains that trial and appellate courts can reach different conclusions due to variations in evidence and testimony, which is why judicial systems have multiple levels of review. The guilt or innocence of Mayor Oh will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court. However, every court must make independent decisions, and the chief justice cannot interfere with lower court rulings - a fundamental principle of judicial independence that the DP appears unwilling to accept.

While both political factions are understandably sensitive to Oh's acquittal due to its implications for future elections, interfering with judicial decisions for political gain undermines democracy. DP leader Kim Min-seok once declared that a Seoul mayoral by-election next year was nearly certain, and DP lawmaker Seo Young-kyo, the chair of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, called for Oh to receive a prison sentence.

These statements by the ruling party leader and a committee member responsible for upholding constitutional principles disregard the judiciary's independence. The opposition has criticized the DP for praising rulings that favor them and denouncing unfavorable decisions as politically motivated or threatening to judges. The DP should recognize that its falling public support may partly be due to its cavalier attitude towards laws and institutions that are essential to public life.

Its reaction to Oh's acquittal may also fuel suspicions that the conflict between the president and chief justice over Supreme Court appointments is motivated by a desire to control the judiciary in the ruling party's favor. To dispel these concerns, the DP must commit to respecting judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court's final ruling, regardless of the political consequences.

Judicial independence mandates respect for the legal process, even when its outcomes are politically inconvenient. This principle should apply equally to all parties.