South Korean Judges Losing in Court of Public Opinion Woohae Cho for The International Herald Tribune On March 11, 2012, Professor Kim Myung-ho, left, watched Judge Park Hong-woo leave the apartment building where he aimed a crossbow at the judge five years ago. Just before this photo was taken, Judge Park came out of the building's elevator and the two made eye contact briefly. SEOUL - The image on the cover of Kim Myung-ho's self-published book neatly captures his attitude toward the South Korean judiciary. It shows the former mathematics professor standing defiantly, law book in one hand and crossbow in the other. The title reads: "Judges, Who Do You Think You Are?" If what he did with a crossbow to a judge five years ago stunned the country, his larger point has resonated with many. In a recent survey by The Good Law, a civic group that monitors the justice system, 77 percent of respondents agreed that court trials were "unfair." Mr. Kim's critics, who include editorial writers in major newspapers, have called him a "terrorist" whose "quixotic delusion" led him to shoot the judge. But there are other South Koreans who have likened him to Robin Hood, a testimony to the depth of anti-judiciary sentiment in South Korea. A movie based on Mr. Kim's clash with the justice system, "Unbowed," has attracted 3.5 million viewers since its release in January. It is the latest in a series of films that have tapped - some say stoked - mistrust of the judiciary and profited at the box office. "To those who call me a terrorist, I ask: "Was the French Revolution terrorism?"" Mr. Kim, 54, said in an interview. What I did in 2007 was righteous rebellion. In 2007, an appeals court judge named Park Hong-woo rejected Mr. Kim's claim that Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul had wrongfully terminated him in 1996. After the ruling, which followed months of one-man picketing outside courthouses and hundreds of letters of complaint to the Supreme Court, Mr. Kim said he lost all hope of justice and decided to deliver the judge "a shock." So, three days later, on the evening of Jan. 15, 2007, Mr. Kim confronted Judge Park as he was about to take an elevator to his apartment in Seoul. You call that a verdict? Mr. Kim said, aiming his loaded crossbow at the judge. Mr. Kim was sentenced to four years in prison for shooting an arrow at Judge Park. Headlined across the country as "Crossbow Terror," the case drew attention both for its drama and the issues it raised. Even before the trial opened, the South Korean Supreme Court released a statement calling Mr. Kim's action "terror against the rule of law" and vowing "stern punishment." But Mr. Kim told the court that he intended not to hit, but just "frighten," Judge Park with the crossbow. He insisted that the arrow was released accidentally during a scuffle and missed the judge. Accusing Judge Park and the prosecutors of "fabricating" evidence, Mr. Kim seized on what he considered crucial gaps in the case: Prosecutors never submitted to the court the arrow that Judge Park said had struck him. The court also did not authorize a blood test to see if the blood found on Judge Park's clothes was indeed his own. "We advise judges to consider seriously why so many people who have been mistreated by the courts call Professor Kim Myung-ho a "21st-Century Robin Hood" and a "real hero of our time," and why an increasing number of people want to attack them with real crossbow terror," a dozen civic groups said in 2008 in a joint statement released after Mr. Kim's conviction. They must have decided that they could not maintain their authority without a severe verdict in a case that has become a symbol of popular dissatisfaction. Four years later, the film has revived the controversy surrounding the crossbow incident. It depicts the judge in that case as high-handed and prejudiced - qualities many South Koreans, according to opinion surveys, associate with the country's judiciary as a whole. "It was like setting a match to gasoline," said Kim Dae-in, president of The Good Law. Mistrust of the judiciary has reached an explosive point. Actions like Mr. Kim's can happen again any time. The Supreme Court lamented that a "fictional" movie "made with a box-office hit in mind" was "inciting unfounded mistrust of the justice system." The conservative daily Dong-a Ilbo said in an editorial: "Moviegoers flocking to a film that glorifies a character like him raises concerns about the dignity of our society."