A South Korean court found four former government officials guilty of forcibly repatriating two North Korean fishermen in 2019 despite their pleas to defect. The Seoul Central District Court gave deferred sentences to the four officials on Feb. 19, meaning the sentences were suspended for two years.
Legal experts criticized the decision, calling it a “soft ruling ” because it does not hold anyone accountable for the illegality of the forced repatriation. A deferred sentence is typically handed down for relatively minor crimes. If the person who committed an offense fulfills certain stipulations required by the court, the sentence will be removed.
Judges at the Seoul Central District Court gave 10-month deferred sentences to Chung Eui-yong, former national security adviser, and to Suh Hoon, former National Intelligence Service (NIS) director, for their roles in sending the fishermen back to North Korea. The court also suspended the six-month prison sentences of former presidential chief of staff Noh Young-min and former unification minister Kim Yeon-chul.
The court ruled that the officials violated the fundamental rights of two North Korean fishermen in November 2019 by forcibly deporting them to North Korea despite their repeated pleas to remain in South Korea. The fishermen had repeatedly stated their intent to defect during a government investigation, but five days after their capture, they were sent back to North Korea in handcuffs. Reports suggest they were executed shortly after their return to the North.
However, the court justified suspending the sentences by pointing out that the deported fishermen had murdered 16 of their fellow crew members before fleeing to the South.
“Under the Criminal Code, a sentence can be suspended only when the defendant has shown clear remorse,” said the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office. “It is difficult to comprehend that the court suspended the sentences of defendants who continue to deny wrongdoing.” The prosecution has vowed to appeal the decision.
“The officials decided to send the fishermen back to North Korea just two days after they were captured and deported them three days later, solely based on their confessions of committing heinous crimes,” the court said.
The defendants argued that the fishermen were not South Korean citizens, but the court rejected this claim, citing the Nationality Act, which recognizes all North Koreans as South Korean nationals by birth.
The defense argued that the fishermen were not South Korean citizens, but the court dismissed this claim, citing the Nationality Act, which recognizes all North Koreans as South Korean nationals by birth.
While the court acknowledged that the forced repatriation was a “serious violation of human rights” and the “harm they likely endured upon their return were severe, “it also stated that “the crimes committed by the fishermen was a factor that could not be ignored.”
A former prosecutor specializing in national security cases criticized the ruling, saying, “Even criminals are entitled to protection under the law, yet this ruling effectively grants immunity to officials who deported individuals recognized as South Korean citizens under the Constitution to an adversary, North Korea, is problematic.”
The case dates back to November 2019, when the Moon Jae-in administration forcibly sent back two North Korean fishermen despite their repeated pleas to defect. The fishermen had been captured by the South Korean military near the Northern Limit Line (NLL) while fleeing south on a fishing boat. Chung and other officials deported them within five days, arguing that they were not eligible for protection due to their alleged involvement in the murder of 16 shipmates before fleeing South.
Prosecutors claim that the Moon administration moved swiftly to deport the fishermen to demonstrate respect for North Korea. At the time, South Korea sought to improve relations with Pyongyang and had been preparing to invite North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to the ASEAN-Korea Summit in Busan.
However, the court rejected this argument, stating that there was no evidence the repatriation was meant to signal goodwill to North Korea or that officials perceived it as such.
