"The Jeon Du-hwan Regime Was a Dictatorship"…College Student Sentenced to Prison Declared 'Not Guilty' After 41 Years

On the afternoon of the 18th of last month, the 41st anniversary of the May 18 Democratic Uprising, civic groups held a press conference urging an apology in front of the former President Jeon Du-hwan's residence in Yeonhui-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Choyoung] A university student who was sentenced to prison for criticizing the military regime of Jeon Du-hwan has cleared his name after a retrial more than 40 years later.

According to the legal community on the 2nd, the Daejeon District Court Criminal Division 11 (Presiding Judge Kim Seongryul) announced that it acquitted Mr. A in a retrial for violating the Proclamation Order, who was indicted in 1980.

In August 1980, just after President Choi Kyuha resigned under pressure from Jeon Du-hwan's new military regime, Mr. A, then a university student, was drinking with a friend at a small store in Gyeongbuk when he made remarks such as "The current regime is dictatorial," and was prosecuted for violating the Proclamation Order.

In October of the same year, the Martial Law Ordinary Military Court sentenced Mr. A to two years in prison with a three-year probation, stating that he violated Proclamation No. 10 issued by the Martial Law Commander, which prohibited the fabrication and dissemination of false rumors that disturbed public sentiment. This verdict was finalized as is.

Forty-one years later, around March of this year, Mr. A filed for a retrial on the grounds that his statements at the time were justified, and the court accepted the request.

The court cited Supreme Court precedents stating that the series of acts committed by the new military regime after seizing military command through a military coup on December 12, 1979, and related to the democratization movement on May 18, 1980, constitute rebellion under the Military Criminal Act and insurrection under the Criminal Act.

The court ruled, "Acts of committing or opposing the destruction of the constitutional order that occurred before and after the May 18 Democratization Movement are lawful acts under criminal law to protect the constitution and constitutional order," and declared, "The defendant's statements do not constitute a crime," acquitting him.