[Politics, That Day...] The G20 'Rat Drawing' Graffiti Incident 11 Years Ago Involving the Prosecutors' Public Security Division

Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office Public Security Division Indicts University Lecturer for G20 Poster Graffiti... Supreme Court Confirms Fine
Controversy Over Arrest Warrant Request and Freedom of Expression Sparks Heated Debate in Legal, Cultural, and Political Circles

[Asia Economy Reporter Ryu Jeong-min]

Editor's Note‘Politics, That Day...’ is a series planning corner that looks back on Korean politics through the ‘recollection of memories’ related to scenes, events, and figures that deserve attention.

Eleven years ago, Korean society was stirred by an issue involving graffiti. The controversy centered on university lecturer Mr. A, who drew a rat image on the official posters of the Seoul summit of the Group of Twenty (G20) countries.

The story goes like this. On the early morning of October 31, 2010, Mr. A and others sprayed black paint over rat designs on 22 G20 promotional posters that had been posted in Jongno, Euljiro, Namdaemun, and other areas of Seoul.

At that time, the G20 Summit Preparatory Committee had prepared posters announcing the Seoul G20 Summit to be held from November 11 to 12, 2010, and posted them in major streets of Seoul. Mr. A’s graffiti depicted a rat holding a cheongsachorong (traditional Korean lantern) from the poster.

The graffiti did not contain any political message or specific phrase; it was simply a drawing resembling a rat.

The controversy over the rat graffiti spread beyond the legal and cultural-artistic circles to the political sphere. The police at the time urgently arrested Mr. A and others and even requested arrest warrants. There was ongoing debate over whether the request for arrest warrants was appropriate.

Social perspectives on Mr. A’s actions varied. Some criticized the investigative authorities for overreacting, while others believed the matter should be taken seriously.

Opinions also differed on the background behind Mr. A and others’ graffiti on the posters and how the issue should be handled. The debate intensified especially as speculation arose that the rat image was targeting the then-president.

The case was handled by the Public Security Division 2 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office. Whether the Public Security Division should intervene in a poster graffiti case was itself a subject of controversy. On January 26, 2011, the Public Security Division 2 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office indicted two people including Mr. A without detention on charges of ‘damage to public property.’

[Image source=Yonhap News]

So, what was the reason Mr. A committed the graffiti? Mr. A was sentenced to a fine of 2 million won in the first trial in May 2011. During the trial, Mr. A’s side explained that the action was intended as a humorous criticism of the government’s obsession with the G20 event by drawing a rat based on the letter ‘G’ in G20.

The Seoul Central District Court explained the background of the guilty verdict in the first trial by stating, “Freedom of expression and creation is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, but it cannot be allowed without limit when it damages the honor of others or infringes on public morals.”

However, the court stated the sentencing rationale as follows: “Since the act was not intended to disrupt the G20 event, and the rat drawing could be interpreted as a humorous expression depending on the viewer, and considering aspects that should be protected as a new art genre, a fine rather than imprisonment was chosen.”

After the first trial verdict, the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy claimed, “The excessive request for arrest warrants and prosecution, and the court’s guilty verdict, raise sufficient suspicion that satire of the G20 event was excessively punished as a crime of contempt.”

Despite ongoing controversies in the political sphere and civil society, the court’s judgment did not change. The first trial decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, and the fine of 2 million won was finalized in October 2011. From the time Mr. A’s case emerged until the Supreme Court’s final ruling, Korean society was heated with debates surrounding graffiti. The legal community debated the appropriateness of punishment, the cultural-artistic community discussed freedom of expression, and the political sphere engaged in disputes over political implications.

The controversy surrounding Mr. A’s rat graffiti is remembered as an incident reflecting the realities of Korean society at that time.