Supreme Court Confirms Fines for Uri Party Members Who Obstructed Tent Removal at Gwanghwamun Square

The fines for members of the Our Republican Party (then the Korean Patriots Party) who obstructed the removal of tents at Gwanghwamun Square in Seoul in June 2019 have been finalized.

According to the legal community on the 8th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Kwon Young-jun) upheld the original verdict sentencing seven Our Republican Party members, including Mr. A, who were indicted on charges of obstruction of special official duties, obstruction of official duties, and assault, to fines.

On the morning of June 25, 2019, when Seoul city officials and contractors began dismantling the tent of the Korean Patriots' Party (Our Republican Party) that was protesting at Gwanghwamun Square in Jongno-gu, Seoul, party members resisted by spraying water and engaging in physical confrontations.

In May 2019, following an incident where a participant died during an 'Anti-Impeachment Rally for Former President Park Geun-hye,' the then Korean Patriots Party occupied Gwanghwamun Square without Seoul City's permission to set up a memorial altar for the deceased, demanding a thorough investigation.

Seoul City requested voluntary removal, but the Korean Patriots Party additionally installed canopies. After issuing three administrative orders for the removal of the illegal tent structures, Seoul City deployed about 900 city officials and demolition contractors in the early morning of June 25, 2019, to carry out administrative enforcement.

Having been notified by Seoul City of the administrative enforcement the day before, Mr. A and others conspired to block it. On the morning of June 25, 2019, from 5:30 a.m. to 7 a.m., 200 Korean Patriots Party members, including Mr. A, linked arms to form a line surrounding two tents and one canopy, obstructing the enforcement.

During this process, they blocked the paths of officials and demolition workers, assaulted them, and threw water bottles and wooden blocks that were inside the tents. Some members also assaulted police officers and journalists.

The first trial recognized all seven defendants as guilty and sentenced them to fines ranging from 700,000 KRW to 3,500,000 KRW.

Among the four who were found guilty of obstruction of special official duties, which applies when obstructing official duties with multiple forces, one who was within the recidivism period for similar crimes was fined 3,500,000 KRW, while the other three were fined 3,000,000 KRW, 2,700,000 KRW, and 2,700,000 KRW respectively. One person who assaulted police officers and was found guilty of simple obstruction of official duties was fined 1,700,000 KRW, and two others who threw water bottles at journalists or assaulted demolition workers and were found guilty of simple assault were fined 1,000,000 KRW and 700,000 KRW respectively.

The court pointed out, "The defendants, as members of a political party, exercised collective and organized physical force with the intent to neutralize the administrative enforcement, thereby obstructing official duties and committing various acts of violence against journalists, police officers, and demolition workers. Considering the circumstances, methods, and nature of their actions, the crimes are of a serious nature, and the risks involved in each act cannot be considered minor."

However, the court explained the sentencing rationale by stating, "The damage was relatively minor, and the crimes appear to have been committed somewhat impulsively in an extremely heated situation during the administrative enforcement."

Mr. A and others appealed, but their appeals were rejected.

Notably, one of the defendants claimed that "the right to legal counsel was violated during the first trial." However, the court dismissed this, stating, "This does not constitute a valid ground for appeal. Although the defense counsel was appointed during the investigation stage as the defendant claimed, the original trial proceeded with the trial and verdict without notifying the counsel of the hearing date, which was an error. However, this did not affect the verdict, and the appellate court has no means to correct such an error in the original trial," and thus rejected the appeal.

They filed a further appeal, but the Supreme Court's judgment was the same.

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