“Judges wanted to eat cuisines which they have never experienced before.”: Supreme Court Chief Justice explains why the public documents were faked to spend public money on expensive meals

Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae appeared before a National Assembly audit and said that the reason false information had been entered into an official document detailing the chief justice’s official business expenses was because “judges and court employees wanted to try foods they had never had before.”
Asked who was responsible for the allegedly false expense records, Cho claimed that he himself had “only learned about it this time.” His remarks have drawn criticism not only over what critics describe as an inappropriate attitude toward taxpayer-funded official expenses—as though they were simply money for eating foods court officials would not normally get to enjoy—but also over allegations that he was attempting to shift responsibility onto lower-ranking employees.
Cho nevertheless apologized, saying, “I believe the Office of Court Administration will take corrective measures so that nothing like this [false reporting of official business expenses] ever happens again. I would once again like to apologize to the public.”
NewsTapa recently obtained itemized receipts related to the chief justice’s official business expenses and reported that expense records submitted by the Supreme Court contained false information. It also found that the Supreme Court had submitted those allegedly false records—official government documents—to the National Assembly as materials for its annual audit.
The National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee conducted its audit of the Supreme Court on October 6, with Chief Justice Cho in attendance.
One of the main issues raised during the audit was NewsTapa’s reporting on the chief justice’s official business expenses. The report found that the Supreme Court had allegedly falsified expense records by inflating the number of people said to have attended meals.
During the audit, Cho presented a prepared explanation regarding the controversy. He also personally addressed why expensive course meals had been purchased using official business funds even when doing so allegedly required false information to be entered into the records.
He said it was because “judges and court employees wanted to try foods they had never had before.”
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae:
“Recently, our judges and employees—for example, because of childcare responsibilities and various other matters—do not like gathering frequently, even if it is for meals costing 20,000 or 30,000 won. When official business needs to be conducted, they would rather meet once, and instead they have this wish to try food they have never had before. That is what members of our organization want. So, in the course of conducting such official business, it appears that in some cases the amount may have exceeded the limit.”
National Assembly audit of the Supreme Court, October 6, 2026
Cho’s remarks prompted criticism that the chief justice appeared to regard taxpayer-funded official expenses as money that could be used to provide officials with food they would not normally be able to eat. Lawmakers called the comments “highly inappropriate” and said he “should be ashamed.”
Rep. Kim Ki-pyo, Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Democratic Party:
“You are saying you bought them expensive food so they could eat something they had never tried before? If you say this was about letting them enjoy something they normally could not afford or treating them to something special, then it sounds as though the executive branch or any other government institution should be allowed to do the same thing. I find that deeply regrettable. That answer was highly inappropriate, particularly coming from the chief justice, the head of the judiciary.”
Rep. Lee Sung-yoon, Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Democratic Party:
“The chief justice said that members of the organization wished to eat foods they had never been able to try before. Ordinary people now find even a bottle of soju expensive. You cannot behave like this. You should be ashamed.”
National Assembly audit of the Supreme Court, October 6, 2026
Earlier, on September 28, Court Administration Minister Noh Kyung-pil appeared before an emergency hearing of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and acknowledged NewsTapa’s reporting that the Supreme Court had entered false information into records concerning the chief justice’s official expenses. He apologized.
However, regarding responsibility for the false records, Noh claimed that the information had merely been “entered at the discretion of the working-level employee in charge.”
Court Administration Minister Noh Kyung-pil:
“As you said, we have been told that the number of people attending the meals was recorded inaccurately. I apologize for the fact that the number of attendees was entered incorrectly.
“When we looked into how this happened, we found that under the Ministry of Economy and Finance’s original reporting rules, there was no requirement to list the number of people attending [in the chief justice’s official expense records]. However, the National Assembly requested more detailed information and asked for the number of attendees. Since this was information that normally did not need to be entered and therefore was not normally recorded, the working-level employee in charge entered a figure at their own discretion.”
Emergency hearing of the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee, September 28, 2026
The document that NewsTapa found to contain false information is titled “Details of the Chief Justice’s Official Business Expense Expenditures.” It is an official document produced by the Supreme Court, more specifically by the Office of Court Administration.
The Office of Court Administration allegedly went beyond creating an official document containing false information and submitted that document to the National Assembly as part of the materials for the 2026 parliamentary audit.
Members of the legal community have said there is a strong possibility that the case could fall under criminal provisions concerning the falsification of official documents. As a result, Noh’s remarks have been criticized as an attempt to place responsibility for the allegedly false official document on a working-level employee.
Following Noh, Chief Justice Cho made similar remarks during the October 6 audit, prompting further accusations that the Supreme Court leadership was attempting to “cut off the tail” by shifting blame downward.
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae:
“I do not personally carry the card, organize gatherings, hold dinners, make the payments, and then prepare the paperwork afterward. The staff member in charge at the Office of Court Administration carries the card and schedules the dinner. I simply attend and encourage the people there. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the budget allocation, its execution, or even how much the meal cost that day.”
National Assembly audit of the Supreme Court, October 6, 2026
His comments drew further criticism.
Rep. Park Jie-won, Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Democratic Party:
“If it has already been clearly established that the official card was used through split transactions and that the number of attendees was inflated, how can you remain in your position? And then you say, ‘I only went around eating; I didn’t know anything’? If we used an official card like that, would the courts find us not guilty?”
Rep. Park Kyun-taek, Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Democratic Party:
“The chief justice spoke as though he were not the person who executed these expenditures and as though there were separate officials responsible, appearing to distance himself from responsibility. He made the decisions and benefited from the spending. Yet shifting responsibility for that budget execution onto subordinates is, in my view, cowardly.”
National Assembly audit of the Supreme Court, October 6, 2026
Members of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee also questioned why the Supreme Court had not initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employee in question if it was true that “the working-level employee entered the information at their own discretion.”
The Supreme Court responded that the employee did not appear to have acted intentionally, an answer lawmakers challenged.
Rep. Kim Ki-pyo, Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Democratic Party:
“The chief justice seems very eager to come here and say that an employee did this. Are you conducting an inspection of that employee? Is there an ethics or disciplinary proceeding? You say it was the employee’s mistake. Shouldn’t that employee be disciplined? Why are you not doing so?”
Court Administration Minister Noh Kyung-pil:
“We do not believe the employee acted intentionally.”
Rep. Kim Ki-pyo:
“If someone inflates attendance figures like this elsewhere, they are immediately disciplined. They can face serious disciplinary action. The reason you cannot seek disciplinary action is because the chief justice knew what was happening. Please give an answer that makes sense.”
Members of the committee demanded that the Supreme Court conduct its own investigation into the allegedly false records concerning Chief Justice Cho’s official business expenses.
Rep. Park Kyun-taek, Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Democratic Party:
“The chief justice has previously served as the head of lower courts and has directly or indirectly dealt with this type of budget execution. It is difficult to believe that he would not have known such manipulation could occur. Wouldn’t that amount to acquiescence?
“If procedures were underway to discipline or report these employees, that might be different. But if there are no such procedures, then I believe the chief justice is effectively tolerating this conduct. I think we also need to consider whether the chief justice himself could bear criminal responsibility. What is your view on that, Minister?
“It would be difficult to argue that this ledger—the ‘Details of the Chief Justice’s Official Business Expense Expenditures’—is not an official document, correct? I would appreciate your opinion, particularly regarding the chief justice’s responsibility.”
Court Administration Minister Noh Kyung-pil:
“We will review the matter.”
National Assembly audit of the Supreme Court, October 6, 2026
However, testimony from the Supreme Court’s ethics inspector suggested that an internal Supreme Court investigation may, in practice, be difficult. The ethics inspection office itself operates under the authority of the chief justice.
Rep. Lee Sung-yoon, Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Democratic Party:
“Inspector, you can inspect judges, correct? You can conduct audits?”
Supreme Court Ethics Inspector Choi Jin-soo:
“Yes.”
Rep. Lee Sung-yoon:
“Can you investigate the chief justice?”
Choi Jin-soo:
“There is some room for legal interpretation on that issue.”
Rep. Lee Sung-yoon:
“Can you investigate him or not?”
Choi Jin-soo:
“Under the Supreme Court rules, audits are conducted under the direction of the chief justice.”
Rep. Lee Sung-yoon:
“Then if the chief justice commits misconduct, are you completely unable to investigate him?”
Choi Jin-soo:
“…”
National Assembly audit of the Supreme Court, October 6, 2026
Ultimately, determining who within the Supreme Court was involved in the allegedly false official expense records—and to what extent—may require an external audit or criminal investigation.
On October 1, the civic group Citizens’ Action for Judicial Justice filed a complaint with the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials against Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae and Court Administration Minister Noh Kyung-pil, accusing them of offenses including the falsification of official documents.