Supreme Court: Victims Who Received Dismissal of Indictment in Retrials Also Eligible for State Compensation

Two Daegu US Cultural Center Cases Sent Back for Retrial

Bereaved Families Who Lost on Statute of Limitations May File New Claims

The Supreme Court has ruled that even if a victim of historical injustice receives a dismissal of indictment (myeonso) rather than an acquittal in a retrial, the state can still be held liable for damages if it can be proven that, in the absence of the grounds for dismissal, the person would have been found not guilty.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

On the 23rd, the Supreme Court’s Third Division (Presiding Justice Um Sangpil) overturned the part of a lower court ruling that had ruled against the plaintiffs in a damages lawsuit filed by seven people, including victims and bereaved families of the Daegu US Cultural Center bombing case, against the state, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

Five individuals, including Mr. A, were named as suspects in the 1983 Daegu US Cultural Center bombing incident, were illegally detained by investigative authorities, and subjected to harsh treatment. They were subsequently indicted, convicted, and served prison sentences. In a retrial, Mr. A was acquitted on charges of violating the National Security Act and the Anti-Communist Law. However, all five were given dismissal of indictment (myeonso) verdicts on charges of violating the former Assembly and Demonstration Act because the statute was repealed.

In the first and second trials, the court recognized the state's liability for compensation only for the part where Mr. A had been acquitted, stating that it had not been proven the others would have been acquitted where indictments were dismissed. The remaining plaintiffs' claims were dismissed on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired.

However, the Supreme Court did not accept this. The justices stated that the mere fact that a dismissal of indictment verdict has been finalized does not automatically result in the state’s liability for compensation. At the same time, they noted that if there is “highly probable proof” that an acquittal would have been rendered in the absence of the grounds for dismissal, then a causal relationship can be recognized between the unlawful conduct of the investigative agencies and the conviction.

The justices determined that this case falls into that category. The testimonies of victims and witnesses were made under torture and duress, and, excluding these statements, the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts.

The court also held that the statute of limitations begins “from the point when the dismissal of indictment in the retrial is finalized,” explaining that prior to the invalidation of the guilty verdicts through retrial, it is unreasonable to expect the victims to pursue litigation against the state.

The same panel of justices (Presiding Justice Oh Seokjun) also overturned a decision in another case on the same day, in which a lower court had ruled against the plaintiffs in a damages suit filed by the bereaved families of a victim who was executed by police in July 1949 in an unlawful exercise of official duties, and remanded the case to the Daegu District Court.

The bereaved families had previously filed a state compensation lawsuit in 2012 but lost after the statute of limitations was deemed to have expired. Subsequently, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Past Affairs determined that the killing of 20 civilians, including the victim, without due process was unlawful, prompting the families to file another lawsuit. The first and second trials dismissed their claims, stating that the binding effect (res judicata) of the previous ruling prevented retrial.

The key issue was whether the revised Framework Act on Clearing Up Past Incidents for Truth and Reconciliation, implemented in February this year, applied. According to the supplementary provisions of this Act, victims and their families who received a truth recognition decision before the law’s enactment, and who lost their compensation claims due to the statute of limitations, can refile for damages within three years from the enforcement date. The Supreme Court ruled that this provision also applies to cases that were already underway at the time the law took effect.

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