[Korean Law Insights] Introduction of the Crime of Legal Distortion in Korea

[Published on March 18, 2026 edition of the "Korean Law Insights" column in the Korea Daily’s Economic Expert Section]

• Controversy Over Overlap with Abuse of Authority… Strengthening Judicial Account-ability

• Concerns Over Constitutionality Remain, Calling for Cautious Future Application

A recent amendment to the Korean Criminal Act introducing the so called crime of legal distortion has passed the National Assembly and received approval from the State Council.

Specifically, the crime of legal distortion targets acts committed by judges, prosecutors, or investigative officials involved in criminal proceedings who, with the intent to grant unlawful or unjust benefits to a particular party or to infringe upon another’s rights and interests, deliberately misapply the law, destroy, fabricate, or alter evidence, or use illegally obtained evidence.

In fact, the Criminal Act already provides for the offense of abuse of authority, and in many cases similar to those covered by the new crime, such conduct has traditionally been prosecuted under that provision. Accordingly, there has been considerable criticism that the new offense is duplicative or unnecessary. The offense of abuse of authority can be understood as a general provision that broadly regulates the misuse of official power. In contrast, proponents of the new crime argue that there are areas not adequately captured under the existing framework.

The offense of abuse of authority fundamentally focuses on external outcomes, such as whether a public official compelled another to perform an act not required by law or interfered with the exercise of rights. Supreme Court precedents also require that the actual exercise of a concretized right be impeded in reality. By contrast, the crime of legal distortion differs in that it regulates the conduct itself, such as the intentional misapplication of the law, distortion of evidence, or the use of illegally obtained evidence.

Meanwhile, some argue that the crime of legal distortion is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of clarity derived from the doctrine of legality in criminal law. The Constitutional Court has held that penal provisions must be sufficiently clear so that the protected legal interests and prohibited conduct can be understood by anyone through ordinary methods of interpretation. However, it has also found that terms such as authority or duty in the offense of abuse of authority are not inherently vague and therefore not unconstitutional. Although the new provision attempts to provide some degree of specificity and includes exceptions for discretionary judgment, it remains an open question whether expressions such as “intentional misapplication” and “manifestly contrary to logic or common experience” can in practice clearly distinguish deliberate distortion from mere error in judgment or misinterpretation of legal principles.

Further concerns have been raised that the crime of legal distortion may infringe upon judicial independence. While intentional distortion of the law must be clearly distinguished from mere errors in legal interpretation, if the boundary remains unclear and the provision is misused, it may lead to an increase in criminal complaints filed by losing parties against judges or prosecutors.

Upon closer examination, the legislative intent behind the introduction of this offense is distinguishable from that of the existing abuse of authority provision, and its necessity may be acknowledged to some extent. However, it remains to be seen whether the law will be strictly applied only in objectively verifiable cases, such as evidence fabrication or clear misapplication of statutes.

Moreover, investigations and prosecutions under the crime of legal distortion will again be conducted by investigative agencies and prosecutors, with final determinations made by the courts. This raises ongoing concerns regarding fairness and neutrality throughout the process. Given the relatively high accessibility of criminal complaints in Korea, the introduction of a new penal provision targeting a specific group may also lead to an increase in complaints against that group.

Even if such complaints ultimately result in decisions not to prosecute, the time and financial costs borne by the parties involved, as well as the broader social costs incurred by investigative and prosecutorial authorities, are far from negligible. Ultimately, whether the crime of legal distortion can function as a system that strikes an appropriate balance between accountability and independence will depend on its careful and prudent application going forward.

▶Inquiries: (424)218-6562

Jin Hee Lee/K-Law Consulting Korean Attorney

[Reference link in original Korean]

https://www.koreadaily.com/article/20260318003858890