This week, the Constitutional Court will hold its first public hearing to determine whether a final court ruling violated fundamental rights. The court will examine whether constitutional judgments are necessary regarding the failure to provide a copy of a search warrant during a raid and the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking to cancel a fine.
According to legal sources on October 18, the Constitutional Court will hold its first hearing on the constitutional complaint filed by attorney Kim Young-soo on October 21 at 3 p.m. This marks the first public hearing since the introduction of the constitutional complaint system in March.
Attorney Kim claims that during the investigation into the death of Staff Sergeant Lee Ye-ram in July 2022, the special prosecutor's team, led by Ahn Mi-young, did not provide a copy of the search warrant when they raided his residence and office as a witness. Although the court partially accepted his appeal, it ruled that witnesses do not have the right to receive a copy of the warrant.
Kim argues that this Supreme Court decision unconstitutionally interprets and applies the Criminal Procedure Act, infringing on rights such as equality, privacy, and the right to request a trial.
On October 23 at 3 p.m., a hearing will follow regarding the constitutional complaint related to the fine imposed on GC Pharma. This case is the first to be referred to the full bench since the introduction of the system. Originally scheduled for October 7, the hearing was postponed after the Constitutional Court accepted a request for delay from the Fair Trade Commission.
GC Pharma received a corrective order and a fine from the Fair Trade Commission for allegedly colluding with wholesalers in a vaccine procurement bid. The company filed a lawsuit to cancel the ruling but lost in the Seoul High Court last October, and the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision in February by dismissing the case without a hearing.
GC Pharma contends that the case should not have been dismissed without a hearing, citing contradictory interpretations in related criminal cases and misunderstandings regarding competition restrictions as grounds for appeal. They assert that their rights to request a trial and property rights have been violated.
The Constitutional Court plans to hear opinions from the complainants and interested parties during the public hearings for both cases. Attendance from the court is not required for either case.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.