|
View Larger Picture |
|
| ▲ On the 11th, the victims of the brothers’ welfare aid who came out of the court are weeping when an emergency appeal against the late Park In-geun, former director of the brothers’ welfare aid, was dismissed at the Supreme Court in Seocho-dong on the 11th. | |
| Ⓒ Yonhap News |
See related photos |
“The man crying over there, this is my wife. I went out to the streets together until midsummer and mid-winter to protest and sign up to reveal this case. I’ve been waiting for today, but the result is dismissal. Now we… hell What should I do?”
A woman sat down in front of the Supreme Court and poured out tears. It was a wife who had a husband who was the victim of the brotherhood support. The husband watched his wife quietly from close, with red eyes. Before long, the husband said in front of the reporters that he was the victim of the brothers’ welfare support, pressing and pressing his resentment.
“It’s the same as the Supreme Court Justices who were found not guilty 30 years ago.”
Immediately after the Supreme Court dismissed the case of emergency appeals for fraternity support on the 11th, the atmosphere on the scene did not subside for a while. About 30 victims of the brothers and sisters who went to the Supreme Court with a reminded face saying, “I was nervous and fell asleep at night,” collapsed or shed tears in various places right after the sentence. One victim shouted with his back against the tightly closed Supreme Court door.
“Isn’t the state grabbing us. Since the state started this issue, the state is also asking for responsibility for the end. But if you decide to the end and ask you to go without saying a question… Isn’t that right?”
[판결의 이유] The conclusion in decades, the period of innocence
On this day, the Supreme Court retained the acquittal of the late director Park In-geun, who was charged with confinement, forced labor, black burial, and sexual assault against civilians in the fraternal welfare support made on the basis of accommodating vagrants during the military regime. In 2018 and 2019, two emergency appeals filed by former Attorney General Moon Moo-il were finally dismissed.
An emergency appeal is an emergency relief procedure that is filed when a judgment is confirmed under the Criminal Procedure Act and the judgment of the case is found to violate the law. The right to apply is the Prosecutor General, and the competent court is the Supreme Court. However, the emergency appeal differs from the retrial system in that it only corrects the illegal matters of the existing judgment and cannot reverse the outcome of the judgment that has already been decided.
On this day, the Supreme Court ruled that “this does not apply when the judgment in the case of support for the brotherhood violates the law.” First of all, the court did not accept the prosecution’s argument that it is illegal to judge the innocent by applying Article 20 of the Criminal Act to the special confinement part of the prosecution against the accused on the basis of the instruction in this case.
The reason why Park was found not guilty is that the previous sentence of innocence cannot be regarded as contrary to the law, since it is Article 20 of the Criminal Code that “not punish acts according to the statute”, not the order of the Ministry of Interior that was the basis for filing an emergency appeal.
In addition, the court said that the order of the Ministry of Home Affairs mentioned as a problem was only one of the prerequisites for applying Article 20 of the Criminal Code. “Even if there is a mistake in applying Article 20 of the Criminal Code to the special confinement of the deceased, (omitted) this is a prerequisite fact. It is only a case that caused the result of a violation of laws and regulations due to misconception. According to the Supreme Court’s past precedent, it has been stated that if a violation of the law is caused by misunderstanding the prerequisites in the process of applying the law, this does not correspond to’when the judgment of the case violates the law’.
Following that, the court judged Park’s innocence for the’weekly confinement act’ and decided that “a trial that has lost its effect due to the abandonment of the high-level trial cannot be the subject of an emergency appeal.” The judge said, “The part of the court that was not guilty of reasons for the defendant was judged along with the guilty part, but was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s ruling.” It was raised, so I can’t accept it,” he said.
[재판부의 당부] “Recovery measures for victims must be taken through past son-in-law activities”
|
View Larger Picture |
|
| ▲ When the emergency appeal against the late Brother In-geun Park In-geun was dismissed at the Supreme Court in Seocho-dong on the 11th, the victims of the brother-in-law assistance who came out of the court are sitting down and weeping. | |
| Ⓒ Yonhap News |
See related photos |
The prosecution also dismissed the additional argument that the original judgment, which judged innocent of the prosecution of special confinement against the perpetrator, should be abolished in order to fulfill the moral responsibility of the victims and to establish justice in our society.
The judge said, “The question of whether to allow an emergency appeal is a matter to be judged separately from the awareness of the nature of this case or the necessity of taking measures to recover damage to the victims.” “There is no choice but to judge based on the same criteria as applied in the appeal case.” Concerns were also cited that if an emergency appeal is allowed in the case with a broad interpretation of the law, legal stability could be compromised.
However, the judge said, “The detainees for the support of the brothers have lived a life in which they cannot resist even if they are beaten or even killed. The core of the problem is that the’freedom of the body’ is violated, which is the highest value of the constitution. The point that’human dignity’ was violated.”
He added, “(According to the revision of the last year’s law), the Committee for Reconciliation of Past History for Truth and Reconciliation may resume activities to investigate the truth of this case.” We hope that through appropriate measures by the government to restore damage and honor, the pain of the victims will be healed and social integration will be realized.”
Park Joon-young “Supreme Court virtually broke the statute of extinguishing statutes for brothers’ welfare support
On this day, lawyer Park Joon-young, who represented the victims of the brothers’ rehabilitation support, said, “It is very regrettable and unfortunate. However, it was dismissed due to legal limitations, and it is not that the court did not accept the victims’ claims.” It is meaningful in the part that stated that we sympathize with the pain and pain of the victims of the welfare center, and hope to receive sufficient comfort and compensation from the state.”
Next, attorney Park said, “The Supreme Court recognized (the case of support for brotherhood) as an organized illegal act of the state for the reason of the judgment. This implies that the case for support for brotherhood may not be affected by the statute of limitations. He said, “It virtually broke it.” Attorney Park referred to the case law of the Constitutional Court as the relevant grounds. Among the cases in which extinctive prescription cannot be asserted, systematic illegal activities of the state are included.
“Today’s trial was a decision to dismiss according to Park’s legal interpretation of the past trial, and I don’t think that the judge did not ignore the resentment of the victims,” said Han Jong-sun, the representative of the victims’ group of brothers and sisters. “The past son-in-law investigation, which will begin in the future, will be conducted separately from this trial,” said one representative. “It should be given priority to focus on the soon-to-be-run past son-in-law investigation and prove the victims’ damage.”