Rejection of Emergency Appeal in Human Rights Violation Case of Hyeongjebokjiwon... Supreme Court Recognizes 'State Responsibility'

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] Interest in the Busan Brothers Home Incident, a representative human rights violation case of the 1980s, has been refocused following the Supreme Court's dismissal of the extraordinary appeal. After the Supreme Court ruling, victims wept and expressed their grievances, but the fact that the court recognized the state's liability for compensation was highly significant.

The Brothers Home, established under the pretext of "guiding vagrants," operated like a detention facility from 1975 to 1987 but was suspected of illegal confinement, forced labor, beatings, and sexual assault. Internal documents indicate that over 500 people died, and some bodies have yet to be found.

The late Park In-geun, former director of the Brothers Home, was prosecuted on charges including illegal confinement. However, in 1989, the Supreme Court acquitted Park, ruling that his actions were the detention of vagrants under government directives at the time and thus constituted lawful acts under criminal law. The court held that the detention was in accordance with government orders and fell under Article 20 of the Criminal Act concerning lawful acts.

However, 29 years later in 2018, Moon Moo-il, then Prosecutor General, filed an extraordinary appeal against Park's case following recommendations from the Prosecutorial Reform Committee under the Supreme Prosecutors' Office. An extraordinary appeal is an emergency relief procedure whereby the Prosecutor General requests a retrial at the Supreme Court when illegalities are found in a finalized criminal judgment. The prosecution argued that the Ministry of Home Affairs directive infringed on bodily and residential freedom and that the standards for targeting and facilities were unclear, thus claiming the previous Supreme Court ruling was unlawful.

On the day, the Supreme Court dismissed the extraordinary appeal. The bench stated, "The acquittal portion of the original judgment concerning the defendant lost its effect following the Supreme Court's reversal ruling after the appeal trial, which included the guilty portion. Therefore, the extraordinary appeal targeting the acquittal part of the original judgment cannot be accepted as it concerns a judgment not subject to extraordinary appeal."

Notably, the 1989 acquittal on special confinement charges was based on the Ministry of Home Affairs directive allowing free control of vagrants and Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which exempts acts under such directives from punishment. The prosecution filed the extraordinary appeal requesting the Supreme Court to overturn the acquittal, arguing that the Ministry of Home Affairs directive itself was unconstitutional and invalid, thus constituting a legal error. However, the court explained that this case was not subject to extraordinary appeal as defined by law. The acquittal was based on Article 20 of the Criminal Act, not the Ministry directive, so there was no issue with the application of the law. The Ministry directive was not a direct basis for the judgment and therefore did not constitute a legal violation warranting extraordinary appeal.

However, the Supreme Court's ruling this time recognized only the state's liability for compensation. While issuing the dismissal, the bench emphasized that the core of the Brothers Home case was "the violation of human dignity, the highest value of the Constitution." They clarified that the dismissal of the extraordinary appeal did not reaffirm the acquittal in the Brothers Home case.

They added, "We hope that appropriate government measures to restore the victims' and bereaved families' damages and honor will heal the pain and realize social integration," urging a government-level investigation into the truth. It was also noted that the Past Affairs Committee for Truth and Reconciliation may resume its truth-finding activities. Attorney Park Jun-young said, "The Supreme Court viewed this case as a large-scale human rights violation led by state agencies," adding, "Although the appeal was dismissed, the reasons given during the dismissal process constitute a meaningful judgment."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.