▲ Representatives of local human rights groups hold a press conference in front of the Daegu District Court on October 25, 2018, during a retrial for the 1983 Daegu US Cultural Center bombing, calling for the truth to be revealed.
Victims who suffered wrongful imprisonment due to the 1983 Daegu US Cultural Center bombing case are now eligible to receive damages from the state.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Um Sang-pil) announced today (the 23rd) that it overturned the lower court's ruling—which had only partially upheld the claims filed by Park Jong-duk and others—and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court in a damage suit filed against the government by victims of torture and their families, including Park.
This decision comes 43 years after the incident on September 22, 1983, when an explosive device detonated in a bag left in front of the US Cultural Center in Samdeok-dong, Daegu, leaving one person dead and four others injured.
Park Jong-duk, Ham Jong-ho, Sohn Ho-man, Ahn Sang-hak, and the late Woo Sung-soo were targeted as suspects by investigative agencies, subjected to illegal detention and harsh treatment, and subsequently indicted.
At the time, Park was charged with violations of the National Security Act, the Anti-Communist Act, and the Assembly and Demonstration Act, while Ham and the other three individuals were charged with violating the Assembly and Demonstration Act.
In January 1984, the Daegu District Court found all charges guilty, sentencing Park to three years in prison with a three-year suspension of execution, and sentencing Ham and the other three to one year and six months in prison.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued a decision to uncover the truth regarding Park and the other victims' case in 2010, prompting them to file for a retrial in 2013.
During the 2019 retrial, the court acquitted Park of the National Security Act and Anti-Communist Act violations, stating, "Illegal confinement, apprehension, and confession statements obtained through torture cannot be used as evidence."
For the Assembly and Demonstration Act violations applied to Park and the remaining victims, the court issued a ruling dismissing the indictment, noting that "the relevant provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (pertaining to assemblies or demonstrations deemed likely to cause significant social unrest) were abolished in 1989 out of a reflective consideration."
Consequently, Park and the others filed a lawsuit against the state in August 2020 seeking a total of 1.8 billion won in damages.
In January 2022, the first-instance court ruled that the state must pay 63 million won exclusively to Park and his family.
It had recognized the state's liability for damages solely concerning the investigation, trial, and execution of sentence related to the National Security Act and Anti-Communist Act charges for which Park was acquitted in the retrial.
The issue lay with the dismissal ruling in the retrial.
The lower courts (first and second instances) had rejected state liability for damages regarding the other victims, holding that "the mere fact that a retrial dismissal ruling was finalized does not mean the indictment, trial, and imprisonment associated with the guilty verdict constitute illegal acts by the state."
However, the Supreme Court ruled today that the state's liability for damages can be recognized for these individuals as well.
The rationale is that although they received a dismissal ruling in the retrial due to the amendment of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, examining the process leading to the commencement of the retrial and the details of the criminal compensation decision indicates that they would have been acquitted had grounds for dismissal not existed.
The Supreme Court stated, "While the mere finalization of a retrial dismissal ruling does not automatically mean that imprisonment under a guilty verdict constitutes an illegal act by the state, the court must separately examine whether there is a causal relationship between the illegal acts committed by state agencies during the investigation and the guilty verdict."
It further explained, "When combining the nature of the crime, presence or absence of evidence, reasons for the retrial decision, and the circumstances under which the acquittal or dismissal was pronounced in the retrial proceedings, if there is 'highly probable proof' that an acquittal would have been pronounced in the absence of dismissal grounds, the state's liability for damages regarding imprisonment and other harms caused by the original guilty verdict can be recognized."
Regarding the torture victims of the US Cultural Center bombing, including Park, the court noted, "A retrial was initiated because it was proven that investigators subjected them to illegal detention and harsh treatment, and persuasive evidence was submitted during the retrial proceedings showing that past guilty verdicts were rendered due to illegal acts by state agencies."
It also pointed out that obligations to pay compensation were recognized under criminal compensation claim cases as well.
Additionally, addressing the illegal acts during the investigation process, the lower courts had previously stated, "Unlike the retrial acquittal, the date of finalization of the retrial dismissal ruling cannot serve as the starting point for the short statute of limitations (three years). The starting point of the statute of limitations must be regarded as at least May 2010, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its partial truth-finding decision, meaning the statute of limitations had already expired (when the lawsuit was filed in 2018)."
In other words, the lower courts had separated the investigation, trial, and imprisonment phases, viewing that the right to claim damages for illegal acts during the investigation began its limitation period in 2010, when the truth-finding decision by the Commission made the illegal acts discernible.
However, the Supreme Court declared, "It is objectively and reasonably difficult to expect ordinary individuals to separate the damage suffered during the investigation stage from the damage suffered through imprisonment under a guilty verdict when exercising their right to claim damages," adding that "the short statute of limitations period begins from the point when the retrial dismissal ruling is finalized."
Because the retrial ruling was finalized in 2019 and they filed a lawsuit for damages the following year, the Supreme Court concluded that the right to claim damages is valid.
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.