Before She was an Extraordinary Attorney, She Was a Judge

By cmoneyspinner - November 1, 2024

“Judge vs. Judge” is a Korean drama TV series, with 32 episodes, categorized as Legal Procedural, Courtroom Drama, Crime and Mystery, Romance, and Comedy (Rom-Com).

Park Eun Bin has made a name for herself by playing the role of “Extraordinary Attorney Woo”. This K-drama series was released in 2022 and a 2^nd season is expected to be released in 2024. But before tackling this role, Park Eun Bin was cast as a judge in the 2017/2018 series “Judge vs. Judge”.
Yeon Woo Jin, who played a detective in the 2024 series “A Virtuous Business”, was also cast as a judge to star alongside her.

SUMMARY: Two judges cross paths with each other and find out they have a lot more in common than they could have ever imagined. Tragic events in their personal lives and possible miscarriages of justice in their professional lives have connected their life timelines. If they untangle the threads, will they reveal the truth or continue to cover it up?

♦ The Case File Was Stolen!

In “Judge vs. Judge”, Lee Jung-Joo was a volunteer high school student working in the government office of a judge who would be handling a very sensitive court case. She is a high school volunteer. Why would a case be “sensitive”? The case involves her brother who is being tried for the rape and murder of a teenage girl. She wanted to steal the case file and destroy the documents. But the judge caught her in the act. First, the judge told her that destroying the documentation would only result in her also going to jail. Instead of destroying her future, why doesn’t she attend college, study law, and become a judge? Lee Jung-Joo took her advice. She disowned her brother and for years she believed that he was guilty. It wasn’t until she was assigned to sit as a part of the panel of judges reviewing her brother’s case that she realized there was a possibility that he was innocent.

One day on her way to court, she was carrying a case file in her bag. As she was walking to her office, an unidentified person on a motorcycle drove past her, yanked the bag off her shoulder, and drove off with it. She attempted to stop him by throwing her shoe at him. (???) Instead of the shoe hitting the motorcyclist, it hit Sa Ui-Hyun, who happened to be driving in his car to work. He heard her yell that her case file had been stolen and since he was also a judge, he realized the urgency of her situation. He chased after the motorcyclist in his car, caught him, and retrieved the file. When he got to work he looked up the judge who was handling the case so he could give her back the file. Ideally, he should have returned the file to her BEFORE she went into court to hear the case. But it didn’t work out that way. She ended up in court without the case file and did not dare to tell her superior that she had lost the case file.

♦ Two Videos About Significant Cases

Judge Lee Jung-Joo’s Case was trying a case of a serial child rapist, and Judge Sa Ui-Hyun’s case was trying a case about a robbery.

Judge Lee Jung-Joo’s Case: A serial child rapist was being tried and the accused showed no regret or remorse. That was the case file the motorcyclist had stolen. She did not tell her superiors that she did not have the file. Instead of admitting that he had committed a grave crime against innocent children, he said he was teaching them “sex education” and their parents should be grateful. That remark was too much for Lee Jung-Joo to listen to so she erupted. First, she threw a water bottle at the accused and then climbed over the judge’s bench to … ??? … who knows what she would have done? Fortunately, there were enough other people in the courtroom to hold her back. Unfortunately, everything was caught on camera and the video was uploaded to the Internet. Needless to say, the case could not be tried that day and the judges would have to return on a later date to continue. What happened on that later date was even more sensational than what she did the first time.

Judge Sa Ui-Hyun’s case: A woman said that she was innocent but was put in prison for murdering her husband. She said that she only confessed because the police told her they would put her son in jail. Her son is mentally challenged and she feared that he may have committed the crime. Rather than allowing her son to go to prison, she confessed. But later she learned that the police had mishandled the investigation and she was framed for the murder. She tried to get a retrial but her pleas were ignored. She stole something from another prisoner to get a trial. But when she got to court, she asked the judge to record her statement. She intentionally committed an act of robbery because all of her appeals to get a retrial for the murder of her husband had been disregarded. Judge Sa Ui-Hyun turned on the camera and recorded her statements. After leaving the courtroom, an incident happened. The woman broke free from the prison guards and wrote a message on the judge’s bench with her blood “My innocence is your guilt”. Judge Sa Ui-Hyun’s superiors told him to destroy the video. Instead, they would use the video of Judge Lee Jung-Joo to distract from this case. The superiors did not want the woman’s case to be retried. Judge Sa Ui-Hyun’s father was the one who rendered the guilty verdict for the first case.

♦ Will You Submit to Your Superiors or Get To the Truth?

The fact that his superiors did not want the murder case to be retried aroused Judge Sa Ui-Hyun’s suspicions. The retrial had been assigned to Judge Lee Jung-Joo and her superiors were asking her to allow the case to be reassigned but she did not want to do that. The fact that the prisoner had insisted for 10 years that she was innocent and she was willing to injure herself and leave a message made Lee Jung-Joo believe that there is a possibility that what the prisoner said is true. If so, a real murderer has not been brought to justice.

Lee Jung-Joo asked Sa Ui-Hyun if she could see the video he had allowed to be recorded. But he said that his superiors told him to destroy it. He asked if she intended to retry the case. She said she hoped that watching the video would help her to decide. Her superiors told her not to and she always submits to her superiors so she can keep her job as a judge. Sa Ui-Hyun gave her the video so she could watch it. Lee Jung-Joo was surprised because he said that his superiors told him to destroy it. He responded: “I am not in the habit of doing something just because my superiors tell me to do it, just so that I can continue being a judge.” Then he added, he wanted to know what she would decide after watching the video. Would she retry the case and find out the truth OR would she submit to her superiors and allow an unjust ruling to stand? He wanted to know. It was Judge vs. Judge.

“A judge succeeds by not making incorrect decisions. By making sure no one suffers injustice.”

Main Characters:

Judge Lee Jung-Joo (played by Park Eun-Bin, “Extraordinary Attorney Woo”)
Judge Sa Ui-Hyun (played by Yeon Woo-Jin, “A Virtuous Business”)

Where to Watch

Actor You Need to Know: Park Eun-bin | Rolling Stone India ~ “Park’s taste in art defines who she is. Her penchant for interesting characters is a testament to her rising fame and a reason behind the accolades she has been receiving thus far”

Viewership and Rating:

IMDb: 6.6 out of 10 stars
My Drama List: 7.7 out of 10 stars
Google users shared a public rating: 4.8 out of 5 stars
Viki viewers rated this series 8.9 out of 10 stars

My personal rating is the same as the Google users.

The two actors who played the leading characters ~ Park Eun-Bin and Yeon Woo-Jin ~ were perfect for the parts. The rest of the cast was just as perfect. Lee Deok Hwa and Kim Hae Sook are veterans of the Kdrama world. No doubt the other actors and actresses felt honored just to be in their presence and brought their ‘A’ Game to the set to make sure this Korean drama received high marks.

So I sort of don’t understand why the Viki viewers didn’t just give “Judge vs. Judge” a rating of 9 out of 10 stars. What were they picking at? (O.o) The series gets 7 stars just for having a stellar cast, and 2 more stars for such an interesting storyline. As soon as the viewer realizes there was a possibility that not one but two cases ended in unjust verdicts; that the cases, although tried separately, were actually connected; and both cases needed to be retried, the viewer is hooked! Will justice prevail this time? You gotta know!