In the United States, a driver pulled over by a traffic cop pleaded, "Please look at me once," trying to say "Give me a break." The officer simply responded, "No soup!" Does he mean he won't even give a single drop of watery soup without any solids? It sounds like Nolbu's wife slapping someone’s cheek with a rice scoop. While it’s a joke, I’m often unsure of the best way to say "Please look past this once." A Christian American friend once jokingly said, "No mercy!" No mercy? I used to think the word "mercy" (자비) was only used in Buddhism.

Recently, I watched a movie titled Mercy. It’s set in Los Angeles in the year 2029. That’s only three years from now! While AI and science have advanced remarkably, this doesn’t seem like something that would happen in three years—maybe ten. In a trial presided over by an AI judge who judges based solely on facts while the defendant is already strapped into an electric chair, wouldn't it be nearly impossible to prove innocence in just 90 minutes? If you fail, the execution happens immediately after those 90 minutes. They say this AI trial system was introduced because crime became so rampant that the judicial system was paralyzed, and as a result, the crime rate plummeted.

When conducting a feasibility analysis to see if something is possible, we examine many factors: Is it chronologically possible? Is it technically feasible? Do laws and systems prevent it? Is there funding to carry it out? If it’s a product, will it sell? Can I (or the company) handle it? Is it beneficial to the nation and society?

Artificial intelligence has become almost omnipotent. Therefore, an AI judge is technically possible. Learning and remembering all laws and precedents is "a piece of cake" for AI. Even now, lawyers and judges use the internet and AI to find laws and precedents. So, technically, there is no issue. Since the state would run it, funding wouldn't be a problem either. As for establishing the laws, the legislature would step in. Thus, if AI trials are necessary, they should be implemented.

Currently, South Korea has nearly its full quota of judges (3,214). The country operates a three-tier system—District Court, High Court, and Supreme Court—with the majority of cases being civil and criminal. About 2,600 judges in 18 district courts and 40 branch offices mostly preside over single-judge cases, though there are three-judge panels as well. High Courts use three-judge panels, and the Supreme Court uses four-judge panels or the En Banc (Full Bench) session. In 2024, approximately 6,915,400 cases were filed, a number that is slightly increasing every year. More than two-thirds of these are civil cases. Among the cases filed, those that led to an actual "substantive judgment or hearing" in civil matters were 805,366 in the first instance, 59,475 in the second instance (appeals), and 14,958 in the third instance (Supreme Court). Including criminal cases would increase these numbers by about one-third.

A single judge in Korea handles roughly 450 main civil and criminal cases per year. If you include non-contentious cases (family, administrative, tax, etc.), the number is much higher. Considering that a judge in Germany handles about 90 cases and a judge in Japan handles about 150 cases a year, Korean judges are severely overworked. This cannot continue. It’s enough to make judges go on strike. From the perspective of plaintiffs and defendants, it takes nearly 200 days for a single-judge civil case and 390 days for a civil panel case. It takes over a year. Given this, how could we not consider an AI judge?

Wealthy people will leave their lawsuits to lawyers and ask them to win, likely offering a success fee. Those who aren't wealthy must be prepared to lose. Citizens who don't know the law well seem to believe that if you have enough power, you can win a trial you’re bound to lose, or at least significantly reduce the sentence, or at the very least, delay the trial. They can postpone the trial or stall the verdict, then take it to the second and third instances. If they lose in the end, they can pay the fine and take the punishment, but in the meantime, they enjoy their high-ranking positions and complete their terms. This is the classic "money equals innocence" (Yu-jeon-mu-joe). Even more shocking is that in some cases, people even control the media and avoid going to trial altogether.

We live in a world teeming with crime. White-collar crime is becoming organized, and the "league" of the upper class with money and power has become a hard, unbreakable core. Why not leave the trials of those who have much and know much, yet commit crimes to get even more, to a swift and accurate AI Chief Justice? Trials should not be delayed. I hope that one day, we can tell it as an old story: "Once upon a time, there was a saying that 'money equals innocence.'"