A man in his 40s, who was prosecuted for describing the 5·18 Gwangju Uprising as a 'riot,' was acquitted in an appeals court, overturning a previous guilty verdict.
The court ruled that negative denigration or subjective opinions about historical events are subject to criticism but do not warrant criminal punishment unless they spread concrete falsehoods.
The Daegu District Court's Criminal Appeals Division, led by Judge Lee Sang-kyun, announced the acquittal on October 16 for Kim, who faced charges under the Special Act on the 5·18 Gwangju Uprising. The lower court had previously found Kim guilty and imposed a fine of 1 million won.
The key issue in the trial was whether the expressions used by the defendant constituted 'false statements of fact' or merely reflected a personal 'subjective opinion.' The appeals court clarified that the current special law limits punishable acts to 'spreading false facts.'
The court explained that the term 'riot' used by Kim is a polysemous expression that can be interpreted in various ways, suggesting it was employed to emphasize his subjective opinion.
Furthermore, the court stated, 'Since the Special Act on the 5·18 Gwangju Uprising limits punishable acts to the dissemination of false facts, negative evaluations of the Gwangju Uprising or differing opinions on its historical significance cannot be subject to punishment.' This perspective indicates that the realm of 'opinion' that requires correction in historical reflection or public discourse cannot be subjected to criminal penalties.
Kim was prosecuted for posting on the internet community 'Ilgan Best Storage (Ilbe)' in May 2021, stating, 'If they had pulled out guns, it was indeed a riot. From the military's perspective, suppressing it was the right thing to do, and many police and soldiers died at that time. I really don't understand why this is called a democratic movement and why there are honored individuals.'
During the trial, Kim's defense argued that referring to the 5·18 Gwangju Uprising as a riot was merely expressing personal agreement with remarks made by Chun Doo-hwan and that there was no intent to spread false information. The appeals court ultimately accepted this argument regarding factual misrepresentation and legal misunderstanding.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.