## Facts

- The National Assembly adopted an impeachment motion against President Roh Moo-Hyun on March 12, 2004, alleging violations of election-law neutrality, disrespect for constitutional institutions, and involvement in corruption through close associates.
- Upon passage of the motion, the President was suspended from exercising presidential powers pending adjudication by the Constitutional Court.
- Allegations included: public statements supporting a specific political party during an election period; public responses challenging the National Election Commission’s determination that he violated election law; and a proposal for a national referendum on whether he should remain in office.
- Additional allegations asserted illegal campaign funding and corruption connected to the President’s associates, and claims of political and economic disruption attributable to mismanagement.
- The Constitutional Court heard the impeachment adjudication and issued its decision on May 14, 2004, within the statutory deadline.

## Issues

1. What is the proper scope of impeachment adjudication, and what constitutes a reviewable ground for removal.
2. Whether constitutional due process requirements directly govern the National Assembly’s internal impeachment procedures.
3. Whether the President is a “public official” subject to statutory obligations of political neutrality in elections.
4. Whether the President’s public statements supporting a party violated (a) political neutrality requirements and/or (b) statutory prohibitions on election campaigning by public officials.
5. Whether the President’s conduct toward the National Election Commission’s decision and the proposal of a referendum on his tenure violated the Constitution.
6. Whether corruption and illegal campaign funds involving close associates constituted impeachable violations by the President himself.
7. Whether political turmoil or economic disruption caused by state administration can constitute a legal ground for impeachment.
8. Whether removal requires a “grave violation of law” that makes it impossible for the official to remain in office.

## Decision

- The Constitutional Court rejected the impeachment petition and reinstated the President.
- The Court held that the President is a “public official” for purposes of election-law neutrality requirements.
- The Court found constitutional and legal violations, including breach of political neutrality by publicly supporting a political party in an election context.
- The Court held the President’s statements did not constitute a prohibited “election campaign” under the statutory provision construed narrowly.
- The Court held unconstitutional the President’s public conduct undermining the National Election Commission’s decision and his proposal of a referendum on his own continuance in office.
- The Court held that alleged corruption involving associates was not established as the President’s own violation for impeachment purposes.
- The Court held that claims of poor performance, political chaos, or economic disruption are political assessments and not legal grounds for impeachment adjudication.
- Despite proven violations, the Court concluded they were not “grave” enough to warrant removal.

## Legal Principles

- Impeachment adjudication is a legal-constitutional judgment on violations committed in the performance of official duties, not a general political evaluation of governance.
- Removal requires a “grave violation of law,” understood as a serious breach of the Constitution or statutes sufficient to make continued service in office untenable and to threaten the constitutional order.
- The President is subject to statutory election-related political neutrality obligations applicable to public officials.
- Not all partisan or improper public statements constitute an “election campaign”; statutory “campaigning” may be limited to organized activity directed at electing or defeating particular candidates.
- The President has a constitutional duty to respect and preserve the constitutional order, including the authority of independent constitutional institutions.
- Extra-constitutional mechanisms to validate presidential tenure (such as a tenure referendum lacking constitutional basis) may violate the constitutional framework governing presidential legitimacy.
- Impeachment for corruption requires a legally attributable violation by the office-holder; misconduct by associates, without sufficient proof of the President’s own violation, is insufficient.
- Constitutional due process requirements do not directly apply to the legislature’s internal impeachment procedure as such; judicial review centers on whether legally sufficient grounds for removal exist.

## Conclusion

The court held that the President committed constitutional and statutory violations related to election neutrality and respect for constitutional institutions, but it refused removal because the violations did not meet the required gravity threshold; the impeachment was dismissed and presidential authority restored.


Impeachment of the President (Roh Moo-Hyun), 16-1 K.C.C.R. 609 (Const. Ct. May 14, 2004)