Supreme Court Ruling Ignored: '1980 Military Tribunal Guilty Verdict'... Prosecutor General Files Emergency Appeal

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The prosecution has filed an extraordinary appeal regarding a soldier who was imprisoned unjustly after being convicted of evading attack despite spotting the enemy during an anti-espionage operation in 1978, receiving a three-year prison sentence from the High Military Court. This comes 41 years after the military court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn the conviction and remand the case, instead affirming the guilty verdict.

On the 8th, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office decided that the Prosecutor General will file an extraordinary appeal against the 1980 military court guilty verdict on the grounds of legal violations. An extraordinary appeal is an emergency remedy procedure filed by the Prosecutor General to correct objectively clear legal violations in finalized judgments.

The prosecution plans to actively reflect this in future procedures related to criminal compensation, considering the serious infringement of fundamental rights by state authority.

According to the prosecution, in October 1978, Private A, a member of the Army Infantry 7th Division, was tried on charges of evading attack despite spotting an armed spy. At the time, the armed spy was suspected of having killed three soldiers on leave and attempting to escape to North Korea.

The Infantry 7th Division Ordinary Military Court found A guilty of both disobeying orders and evading attack, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Army High Military Court (1st trial) upheld the guilty verdict but reduced the sentence to five years in prison. The Supreme Court (1st appeal) acquitted A of both charges and remanded the case back to the Army High Military Court.

The Army High Military Court (2nd trial) countered that A was fully aware of his duties as a soldier in a real combat situation. It recognized the charge of evading attack, citing his combat readiness, and sentenced him to three years in prison. However, the Supreme Court (2nd appeal) again overturned and remanded the case, stating that A could not be considered to have attacked the enemy or deserted due to danger.

Nonetheless, the Army High Military Court (3rd trial) re-sentenced A to three years in prison without any legal rebuttal to the Supreme Court’s (2nd appeal) ruling. At that time, under emergency martial law, soldiers’ rights to appeal were restricted, and the Army High Military Court’s ruling was thus finalized as is.

The prosecution judged that when a higher court overturns and remands an original ruling, the higher court’s judgment is binding, and if a lower court issues a ruling contrary to the binding effect of the remand decision, that ruling violates the Court Organization Act.

The prosecution concluded that since the Army High Military Court (3rd trial) made a ruling contrary to the Supreme Court’s acquittal-oriented remand decision without any legal argument or new evidence, it violated the binding effect. Furthermore, A’s right to appeal was restricted due to the unlawful emergency martial law, infringing on his right to request a trial, thereby recognizing a violation of the law.

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