Our lawyers are in charge of the application and enforcement of the law, but who can give a clear answer in a word to the question, “What is the law?” Of course, we can see repeated answers in legal philosophy books that the law is the “order of sovereign,” “forced norms,” or “the product of social contracts,” or that “actual law is the law.” However, no jurist has been able to solve the problem in a cool way yet. And the legal practitioner, especially the judge in charge of the trial, has been questioned one after another, asking,
“What powers are you judging by?” and “Is there a standard of law that exists, and can we have been raised one after another.
In my opinion, judges appointed by the Constitution, which is the promise of the establishment of the state, and the actual law enacted by the national delegation, are judged according to the standards of the actual law within the scope of their responsibilities and authority. In this way, the law is considered to be one of the national systems and the most important system to move the state in the rule of law. This system is open to other systems within the state and society, such as politics, economy, and ethics, and seems to be affected by them and at the same time have an influence on them. I think it is a specific law that is constantly calculated by legal institutions in this system. However, the standard of the actual law is always unclear and there is a possibility of change, so judges must continuously establish universal and specific standards. In this way, the view that “the behavior of a judge is the law” omits various premises, so there is a truth on one side, albeit incomplete.
However, when it is said that the law is calculated only by the actual law, there are many insufficient problems, and the question remains whether there is something transcendent and immutable somewhere. Leaving many of these questions aside, judges are still working out specific laws in their daily work today. In particular, in criminal trials, it rationalizes itself to judge and sentence the accused according to the standards prescribed by the actual law based on the entrustment of the national law, but somehow I feel that it is a little presumptuous among human tasks. As for me, who is currently on trial for a felony criminal settlement case, I would like to rely on that power, although I am an atheist, I confess that I have not turned to a particular religion. By doing so, we will be able to face the trial with a more humble and sincere attitude and get closer to a more just and balanced judgment. Then, when he sentenced the defendants to heavy punishment, he says in his heart. “God, forgive us and save them.”