Key figures from the Moon Jae-in administration's national security team were acquitted in the appeal of the 2020 West Sea civil servant shooting case.
On June 16, the Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 3, led by Judge Lee Seung-han, upheld the not guilty verdict for Suh Hoon, former head of the National Security Office, and Kim Hong-hee, former head of the Coast Guard, who faced charges of forgery of public documents and defamation of the deceased.
The court acknowledged that the Coast Guard's investigation results may have included somewhat hasty or exaggerated expressions, but it ruled that these did not constitute false statements or the creation of false public documents intended to undermine public trust.
The central issue in the trial was whether the Coast Guard's three announcements in 2020 regarding the presumed defection of Lee Dae-jun, a civil servant who was shot, amounted to false public documents. The prosecution alleged that Suh and others directed the Coast Guard to prepare and distribute false reports to conceal the shooting and fabricate a defection narrative.
However, the court dismissed the prosecution's claims based on the legal principles surrounding the forgery of public documents. It stated, "When considering the overall intent of the public document, if important parts align with objective facts and only minor details differ or are somewhat exaggerated, it cannot be deemed a false public document that jeopardizes public trust."
The court further concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential condition of the 'falsity of the announcement.' It noted, "In the situation where it is unclear what transpired after the deceased left the Mugunghwa 10 until he was found in North Korean waters, there is no evidence to definitively ascertain that his intention was not to defect." The court pointed out that the prosecution also could not definitively assert that he did not defect.
The court specifically referenced the Coast Guard's key evidence for the presumed defection, including the wearing of a life jacket and expressing an intention to defect to North Korean soldiers, stating these were relatively well-established facts based on military and police intelligence at the time. It affirmed, "Given these facts, the defendants' inference of the deceased's potential defection is reasonable and substantial."
Additionally, the court characterized the Coast Guard's announcements as more of an 'opinion presentation and evaluation' based on the available data rather than a mere 'statement of facts.' It concluded, "While one could argue that such evaluations were somewhat hasty or used definitive language to exaggerate the situation in the absence of direct evidence, it is difficult to view them as containing false information that would harm public trust."
The court emphasized that even if the announcements came from a national agency, which typically commands strong public trust, the essence of presenting opinions or evaluations does not transform into a mere statement of facts.
The court also dismissed allegations against Kim regarding a false notification related to a request for information disclosure from the family, stating, "The evidence submitted by the prosecution is insufficient to establish that Kim directed or was involved in such instructions to the responsible department head."
Ultimately, the court ruled, "The evidence presented by the prosecution does not support the claim that the Coast Guard's announcements contained false information that would jeopardize public trust or defame the deceased and his family," affirming the lower court's not guilty verdict without any factual errors or legal misunderstandings.
Earlier, former National Intelligence Service Director Park Ji-won and former Defense Minister Seo Wook, who were also acquitted in the first trial, had their not guilty verdicts confirmed as the prosecution did not appeal. The appeal trial proceeded only for some charges against Suh and Kim.
After the trial, Suh spoke to reporters, stating, "Both the first and second trial courts recognized the reasonableness and validity of our judgments at the time. The first court affirmed that the government's decisions were not incorrect from an average common-sense perspective," expressing gratitude to the court.
Suh criticized the Yoon Suk-yeol administration for investigating and prosecuting them, calling it a "nationally unfortunate incident." He added, "Dragging security policy into court and having many involved in security agencies investigated by the Board of Audit and Inspection and the prosecution ultimately leaves many aftereffects. I hope such incidents do not occur in the future. I sincerely mourn for the deceased who suffered unjustly and extend my condolences to the bereaved family."
However, the family expressed intentions to appeal. After the trial, Lee Dae-jun's brother, Lee Rae-jin, stated they would appeal and also plan to file complaints with the International Criminal Court and the International Maritime Organization. He indicated they would seek a constitutional review, claiming the court distorted the law.
Additionally, they asserted that President Lee Jae-myung's previous comments regarding the case infringed upon judicial authority and included him in their list of individuals to be reported.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.