Seoul court suspends sentences for Chung Eui-yong, Seo Hoon in North Korean repatriation case

During the Moon Jae-in administration, former National Security Office Director Chung Eui-yong, former Presidential Chief of Staff Noh Young-min, former National Intelligence Service Director Seo Hoon, and former Minister of Unification Kim Yeon-chul received suspended prison sentences in the first trial related to the forced repatriation of North Korean fishermen. A suspended sentence means the court determined that the defendant was guilty of the charges but did not impose a sentence. If the two-year suspension period is completed without incident, the punishment will be avoided.

On the 19th, the Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 21 (Director General Heo Kyung-moo) opened a sentencing hearing for the National Intelligence Service Act violations against former Director Chung and others, granting each a suspension of a 10-month sentence for Chung and Seo. Noh Young-min and Kim Yeon-chul received a suspension of a 6-month sentence each. The first trial ruling came two years after the indictment.

Former Director Chung and others were indicted in February 2023 on charges (abuse of authority under the National Intelligence Service Act) for directing officials from agencies such as the National Intelligence Service and the Ministry of Unification to forcibly repatriate North Korean fishermen, despite the fact that two North Korean fishermen expressed their intent to defect at least four times during joint investigations that occurred in November 2019. They were also charged with preventing fishermen accused of killing 16 fellow crew members during their defection from exercising their right to trial under our laws.

The court determined that the decision made by the four individuals to forcibly repatriate two North Korean residents constituted an obstruction of the exercise of authority under criminal law. The court stated, “The defendants quickly repatriated the two North Korean residents based on the premise that they were heinous criminals, thus isolating them from society.” It further noted, “This leads to a very dangerous conclusion that if a person is a heinous criminal, their basic rights can be violated by state power without trial.” Additionally, it stated, “Even if North Korean residents are considered foreigners, transferring them close to an expulsion without any procedures in such a short period violated various legal regulations and did not follow any procedures.”

Previously, prosecutors had indicted the four on charges of abuse of authority under the National Intelligence Service Act, but this part was found to be not guilty. The charge of abuse of authority under the National Intelligence Service Act is established when someone abuses their work authority to arrest or detain another person or make them perform an action they are not obligated to. However, the court determined that forced repatriation was not part of the duties of the National Intelligence Service Director and their staff, hence the charge of abuse of authority under the National Intelligence Service Act did not apply. Instead, the court exercised its authority to determine whether the charge of abuse of authority under criminal law was established, resulting in a guilty verdict.

However, regarding the suspended sentence, the court remarked, “The heinousness of the crimes committed by the North Korean residents cannot be overlooked.” The two North Korean residents are reported to have killed 16 crew members and disposed of their bodies at sea due to the captain’s cruel treatment.

The court also stated, “There are no laws or guidelines that can be applied to matters such as this case.” It added, “Instead of filling the contradictions and gaps in the legal system of the Republic of Korea, it is questionable whether it is a better solution to impose actual disadvantages on the defendants by assigning countless investigative personnel and prosecution maintenance personnel over the years to ultimately impose prison sentences, suspended sentences, disqualifications, or fines.” Furthermore, it noted that it is difficult to see the possibility of recidivism among the four.

The court revealed that it considered the fact that the prosecution had received a complaint regarding this case during the Moon Jae-in administration but dismissed it, and then after a change of government, reopened the investigation and indicted the individuals. The court expressed, “There remains significant doubt as to whether the objectivity obligation of the prosecutor was adhered to in the investigation and indictment,” and added, “The circumstances under which the prosecutor deemed it unnecessary to investigate the initial case led to its dismissal were taken into consideration during sentencing.