From what I have read a judge can override a guilty verdict. If he does so, for what I have read, there is no reprisals to that judge if he decides to do so. That judge does NOT need to explain his decision even if the jury decides otherwise. So if a judge has THAT kind of power then there is NO need for a jury. Does a judge HAVE to explain his/her reason to override the jury's verdict? Is there some kind of over sight to punish a judge from doing so on his belief compared to the jury's? Can a judge be removed for doing so?
I will take the liberty of assuming that you are asking a question about U.S. law, as you do not specify.
A judge can overturn a guilty verdict if no reasonable jury could have reached that decision and an acquittal, once entered, cannot be appealed. This is called a J.N.O.V. which is an abbreviation for a latin phase that means judgment not withstanding the verdict.
It would be highly unusual for a judge to do so without explaining the reason for the verdict, which judges almost always do, but that wouldn't influence whether the ruling could be appealed or not in a criminal case.
A judge suffers no consequences whatsoever for decisions made in a judicial capacity. Indeed, it is the duty of a judge, sometimes, to overturn jury verdicts. It is certainly not a ground for removing a judge. But, most judges do face periodic elections and it could be raised as a campaign issue, although probably not a very strong one.
Your outrage is misplaced. This is a tool by which miscarriages of justice by a jury are prevented. And, while a judge can set aside a guilty verdict that is not supported by the evidence and would have been set aside on appeal in any case, a judge cannot set aside an acquittal by a jury.