Questions over dropping appeal in West Sea case

 

From left, former National Security Adviser Suh Hoon, former Blue House Chief of Staff Noh Young-min and former National Intelligence Service Director Park Jie-won hold a joint press conference on the death of a fisheries official in 2020 at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Oct. 27, 2022. [NEWS1]

 
As the deadline for filing an appeal approaches at midnight on Friday, prosecutors have remained silent following a first-instance court ruling that acquitted five senior officials from the Moon Jae-in administration accused of covering up the killing of a civil servant in the West Sea. The victim’s family has protested the verdict as unjust and urged prosecutors to appeal. If the silence reflects careful legal deliberation, it may be understandable. Still, lingering doubts remain over whether the prosecution is being influenced by recent remarks from the president and the prime minister, both of whom have openly questioned the investigation and indictments.
 
The incident occurred in September 2020 under the Moon administration. Lee Dae-jun, a working-level official with the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries’ West Sea Fisheries Guidance and Control Division, went missing after separating from a patrol vessel. He was later shot and his body burned in waters controlled by North Korea. Shortly afterward, the Coast Guard, the National Security Office and the Ministry of National Defense announced that the case was believed to involve a voluntary defection to the North.
 
Suspicion spread that the government hastily framed the incident as defection to avoid diplomatic friction with Pyongyang. The timing fueled such doubts. President Moon was scheduled to deliver a speech at the United Nations early the next morning, calling for a declaration to end the Korean War. After the change of administration in 2022, the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an audit and filed complaints. Prosecutors then indicted Suh Hoon, former national security adviser, Park Jie-won, former director of the National Intelligence Service and others, accusing them of distorting the case by ordering secrecy despite intelligence indicating North Korean gunfire and presenting the incident as a voluntary defection.
 

Related Article

• Gag order? Prosecutors demoted after protesting Daejang-dong appeal withdrawal.

• Dropping the appeal and the question of breach of trust

• How the prosecution’s decision to not appeal the Daejang-dong case affects President Lee Jae Myung

 
On Dec. 26, the Seoul Central District Court acknowledged that the process of reaching and announcing the defection conclusion had been inadequate. However, it ruled that there was insufficient evidence to determine that the defendants had deliberately committed crimes such as concealment. All five were acquitted. The first-instance ruling, reached after weighing legal principles and evidence, deserves respect. Still, in criminal cases where guilt and innocence are fiercely contested, it has long been standard practice for prosecutors to file an appeal and seek a second-instance judgment. This is also why Korea maintains a three-tier court system.
 
On Dec. 30, President Lee Jae Myung criticized the prosecution’s handling of the case at a Cabinet meeting, saying accountability should be considered. Prime Minister Kim Min-seok went further, calling the case an “effectively fabricated indictment” and saying it would be natural for prosecutors to forgo an appeal. Such remarks risk being interpreted as guidance from the executive branch to prosecutors who are expected to act independently.
 
Key facts also remain unresolved. More than 5,000 documents were deleted by agencies including the National Intelligence Service and the Ministry of National Defense. Details of former President Moon’s instructions and movements are designated as presidential records, limiting investigative access. In a case involving the killing of a citizen, with the full truth still not established, prosecutors abandoning an appeal without compelling justification would leave a troubling precedent.


This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.