[Reporter’s Notebook] Calling the 'Court Attack' a Right of Resistance?

On the 10th, at the Seoul Western District Court in Mapo-gu, Seoul, a trial related to the violent incident that occurred at this court about 50 days ago continued throughout the day. After the trial, the words of the defense attorney who met with reporters in front of the court caught attention.

"This case involves young people resisting illegal actions by state institutions." "The right of resistance is stated in the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and anyone can exercise it."

The defense attorney referred to the actions taken by the defendants at the Western District Court on January 18 and 19, immediately after the issuance of an arrest warrant for President Yoon Seok-yeol, as an 'exercise of the right of resistance.' But is that really the case?

The right of resistance is not explicitly mentioned in the law. However, the majority of the public understands it as common sense. To introduce the concept, it can be described as 'the right inevitably exercised by citizens who have no other means of redress when their freedom or rights are infringed upon by unjust public authority exercised by state institutions.' For example, the predecessors of the April 19 Revolution who risked their lives to oppose dictatorship and injustice, and the citizens of the French Revolution exercised the right of resistance.

According to this common public understanding, the events that took place at the Western District Court were simply a 'riot,' and nothing more than an assault on the judiciary by 'rioters.' There are numerous ways to challenge court decisions. The appellate process is guaranteed by law, and lawful assemblies can be held outside the court. No one can prevent the freedom to express opinions online or on social media. Yet, disregarding all these common-sense and legal procedures, the actions are called an 'exercise of the right of resistance.'

There was a different scene that could be called an exercise of the right of resistance during the recent emergency martial law situation that led to the passage of the impeachment motion against President Yoon. As witnessed by the majority of the public, it was the citizens who stood against the soldiers on the night of December 3 last year during the emergency martial law. They courageously confronted armed soldiers, risking danger to protect the freedom and rights of the citizens.

At the first trial of the court assault case, some of the 23 defendants apologized for causing trouble, but about half denied the charges. They themselves likely know better than anyone that their actions were not an exercise of the right of resistance. Claiming the right of resistance may be a shallow 'legal tactic' aimed at reducing punishment. However, legal tactics cannot override common sense, nor can they cover up the truth. It is merely another face of violence disguised as law.

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