Resolution of Jeju 4·3: Achievements and Contributions – Judge Jang Chan-soo

 

Vivid testimonies of victims’ families echo in court

Judicial healing underway

<Editor>

“The court judges that each defendant is not guilty.” Do you remember the retrial court ruling for some 1,100 victims of unlawful verdicts during Jeju 4·3? These were the people who had no knowledge of the law when alive. They became defendants without any idea about their charges and ended up going to heaven. Nearly 75 years have since passed. Some of the bereaved families stood before the law on their behalf. Unexpectedly, the judge reminded the audience of “living justice.” He allowed the defendants time to vent their pent-up resentment and sorrow, consoling the families mourning for their loved ones. Chief Judge Jang Chan-soo, a man who turned Chamber 201 of the Jeju District Court into a historically unprecedented court soaked in tears. After completing his three-year term in Jeju, he was appointed to the Gwangju District Court — Gwangju is where he spent his childhood. Before this interview, he and his wife had just come from buying flower bulbs in a sunlit, spring market and had planted them at home. During the interview, he said that all he did was just follow the legal procedures in the court, the last gate knocked on by those who desired to appeal for the acquittal of their unlawful charges. This is why he humbly declined to receive the certificate for an honorary Jeju resident registration card. Expressing his emotional ties to Jeju, he pointed out that there remain additional tasks to be completed.

Interviewed by Heo Young-sun

Arranged and photographed by Yang Na-woon, Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation Memorial Project Team

 

You began your term in Jeju in 2020 with the ex officio retrial for unlawful verdicts related to Jeju 4·3 for which you announced the judgment in December of that year. It has been almost a week since you were transferred to the Gwangju District Court after serving three years in Jeju. How does it feel?

Jeju is such a beautiful place. I was very depressed by the time I was leaving Jeju. Perhaps this is because I learned the painful history of Jeju 4·3 hidden behind the beautiful scenery.

I’m embarrassed to say that I was attracted to that very scenery and thus applied to serve in the Jeju District Court, but my earlier perception of Jeju 4·3 at the time of my appointment was way too abstract. My understanding was, so to speak, that there used to be an ideological confrontation on Jeju Island before the Korean War which resulted in Jeju 4·3 and the deaths of countless Jeju residents. Honestly, I felt at a loss when I received the retrial request for more than 300 defendants who had been convicted in the courts-martial.

Thoughts, ideologies, and institutions are designed for human dignity and happiness, while throughout history, there sometimes occurred cases where their ends were overturned and trampled by their means. It is said that we learn history so as not to repeat the same mistakes, but I am doubtful if we are properly learning lessons from the past.

I believe that there should be an accurate understanding of Jeju 4·3, humanistic compassion and comfort for the victims’ families, and movement forward towards true forgiveness and reconciliation between the perpetrators and the victims. I approached the case thinking that all of us still living need to stay alert so that no such thing as Jeju 4·3 recurs. This is a change in my perception which occurred during the Jeju 4·3 retrial.

Now that I left Jeju and started my term in Gwangju, I think you came to ask me not to forget about Jeju. As a judge in charge of the final judgment of the case in the Jeju District Court, I brood over whether I fully understood the feelings of victims’ families and Jeju residents and whether I failed to allow more of them to speak for themselves due to time constraints. I’m also concerned that I was unable to conclude the case during my term and had to leave in the middle. But I expect that my successors will carry it forward much better than I would have done.

You acquitted 1,191 people through an ex officio retrial. As a judge in charge of making the final decision, what did you want to convey to the bereaved families and the local community of Jeju?

Jeju 4·3 is one of the most tragic events in contemporary Korean history that took place in the time of the establishment of the Republic of Korea. Its truth was not completely discovered for decades, with embitterment of victims and their families piled up, layer upon layer. It was very difficult to examine the case due to the lack of relevant records. There were also ideological views toward the retrial, rather than focusing on the legal grounds. All of these are the factors that made proceeding with the retrial difficult. The biggest reward for me would be that the defendants and their families have been exonerated despite all these difficulties, while caring about one another.

In terms of content, it was hard to listen through each defendant’s desperate story without having empathy or becoming intensely emotional. The court would be the last place for a falsely accused person to appeal to. One of the functions of the law is to comfort those who fall victim to unlawful acts while rigorously admonishing those who commit crimes. The Jeju 4·3 retrial case, particularly, involved so many victims, which is why I left words of consolation for their bereaved families in the written judgment. The judgment in itself is pretty simple. “The court hereby judges that each defendant is not guilty.” I added some more comments to it for four reasons: First, for consolation; second, for reflection on the massive scale of lost lives; third, to pray for the victims to rest in eternal peace; and last, to show determination to ensure the case is properly remembered, without letting the memory fade. Hoping to convey these messages, I tried to use Jeju words, though not fluent, and quoted phrases from books and poems. One of the quotes was from your essay, “You at least spent spring feeling grief.” We all greet a new spring every year, feeling regretful about its passing. But the deceased victims didn’t even have a chance to feel the coming of that new spring. That’s why I wanted to tell others that we, the living, are to share a large part of the remaining task.

Would it be the reason? I heard that you proceeded with the retrial with the aim of “realizing justice in accordance with the law.”

It is as it literally means. Resolution of disputes through trials has the function of “realizing justice in accordance with the law,” going beyond the fulfillment of judicial relief for individuals. In this regard, it is significant that the retrial on Jeju 4·3 identified the cruel acts that had been committed during the past trials by investigative agencies and exonerated the related defendants by addressing the cases once again. At the same time, it reaffirmed that efforts had failed to abide by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and its Criminal Act and Criminal Procedure Act. This relates to the context of “realizing justice in accordance with the law.” Here, it is important to be wary that the verdict of “innocence” for the defendants in the retrial does not correspond to a procedure to confirm that they were ideologically flawless at the time of Jeju 4·3. Allow me to reiterate that the retrial on Jeju 4·3 is not to determine the rightness or wrongness of a certain ideology. The court has no authority to make such a decision.

Did you happen to encounter any personal concerns during the retrial?

It would be a lie to say that I didn’t have any personal concerns. I think it was when I was ideologically questioned over my hometown and the content of my judgment. Therefore, I read books about Jeju 4·3 and Jeju Island, thinking, “I should first have knowledge of what my case is about.” Starting with “Jeju 4·3 Incident Investigation Report,” the official report on the case, I kept reading various books and articles, including Sun-i Samch’on, written by Hyun Ki-young, Jeju 4·3 Testimonies, released on The Jemin Ilbo, Jeju 4·3 Prisoners Who Came Back Alive, published by Jeju 4·3 Research Institute, Camellias Fall, a collective of works by painter Kang Yo-bae, Jeju 4·3: In Search of Its Truth, written by Yang Jo Hoon, former president of Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation, and Jeju 4·3: Questions for the United States, written by journalist Huh Ho-joon. Your books, such as To You Who Ask Questions about Jeju 4·3 and the series Jeju 4·3 and Women, containing vivid testimonies of elderly Jeju women, were also very good resources for my understanding of Jeju 4·3.

In particular, I remember feeling suffocated when reading “Jeju 4·3 Testimonies,” unable to pass onto the next page thinking about how those in charge of the coverage had felt. In the case of “Jeju 4·3 and Women,” three volumes have been published so far, and I strongly recommend reading them. Additionally, the testimonies by victims’ families I heard outside the court or directly from them in the court also helped me greatly to accurately perceive and understand Jeju 4·3.

Heading the panel of judges, all I did is respect the nation’s constitutional principles of prioritizing the basic free and democratic order as the highest value to pursue and to move the retrial forward in accordance with the laws enacted under those principles. I’d like to reiterate that a retrial is not a procedure to determine the rightness or wrongness of an ideology. Rather, it is the process of judging whether human rights were violated without going through due process. Social confusion has been aggravated recently due to extreme conflicts and confrontations over values. In that regard, I took a lot of things into consideration so as not to give the impression that I was biased to a certain side.

You heard in the court what you read in the book, directly from the bereaved families. The atmosphere in which they told their stories made an impression as they were sometimes crying and sometimes laughing.

I took into account “therapeutic jurisprudence,” one of the functions of the judicature. It was also intended to document their voices as a historical record. In retrospect, there are so many people who suffered severe damage but lived in silence for over seven decades without saying, “I suffered unbearable damage.” I hoped that although belated, their pain could be healed with jurisprudence by allowing them to speak out in court, saying, “My parents died under false charges and I also lived a life with unbearable hardships,” and to at least express part of their deep-rooted resentment and sorrow.

It still rings in my heart how each of the defendants’ families told their mournful stories in the court. An elderly woman cried out that all her elder brothers had been killed because of her and that her entire family scattered afterwards. Another elderly woman said that she sighed her whole life because of grief and waited for her child to return home, not knowing whether the child was dead or living. There was also a grandchild of a victim who shared his grandfather’s story with the audience. Jang Jeong-eon, former chairperson of the Jeju Provincial Council, recounted his memory of his mother who had no idea where her first son had been taken and prepared a bowl of clean water every morning to pray for his return.

And on March 16, 2021, the day finally came to announce the court’s judgment for over 300 defendants. I remember that for days I had ruminated whether I should dismiss the indictment or acquit them. One day, I was leaving work after handling trials the whole day when I saw victims’ families holding a press conference in front of the court’s main gate. I couldn’t bear to use the front gate and came out of the rear gate, thinking, “Oh… I’m in such a historical position today.” This memory will likely last for a long time.

Is there any improvement you felt while leading the trial?

I heard that starting from this year, the ex officio retrial for the victims of unlawful Jeju 4·3 trials other than the courts-martial will be assigned to the Jeju 4·3 Ex Officio Retrial Joint Task Force. It is a positive change. There are about 3,000 defendants anxiously waiting for a retrial, but at the pace of moving the retrials forward, I’m not sure how many more years it will take to complete the task. Therefore, I think it is necessary to encourage more defendants to request an ex officio retrial. The resulting increase in workload will be able to be carried out if the task force secures additional workers.

Concerning the next improvement, the applications for retrials should follow the order of the dates of when the judgments were originally announced in the general trials against the defendants. It is a perfunctory process.

Now, it might be a more concrete realization of justice to add material efficiency to deciding the order based on the specific sentence of each defendant. During the retrial process, I thought there was a lack of listening to the statements of the victims’ families. I hope that the statement-hearing process will be more solidified through consultation with the judges, the prosecution, and the defense counsels.

Finally, the retrial in the Jeju District Court currently involves a structure wherein one chief judge operates two collegiate courts. It appears that there will be a significant increase in requests for an ex officio retrials for summary orders from general trials. Therefore, I think that if the Jeju District Court creates a separate court in charge of the Jeju 4·3 retrials and appoints its presiding judge to head the collegiate courts, it will help grant more swift relief for the victims’ rights.

++ On March 29, 2022, the historic first ex officio retrial trial of 40 defendants, who had served prison terms under false accusations for committing crimes of insurrection or for violating the National Defense Guard Act, was held at the 4-1 Criminal Division of the Jeju District Court (Chief Judge Jang Chan-soo). (Source: The Jeju Sori)

 

It is prospected that there will be an ex-officio retrial for the defendants of general trials.

In my humble knowledge of legal terms, Jeju 4·3 retrials often refer to an “ex officio retrial” that the prosecutor claims for the benefit of the related defendants. But there is also a “retrial as per request” that a defendant or his or her family members claim as specified by law.

Prior to 2022, retrials on Jeju 4·3 were conducted only as per request, but with the general revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act, an ex officio retrial could be directly requested by the prosecutor. As a result, retrials as per request and ex officio retrials were first filed with the Jeju District Court in 2022. The generally revised Jeju 4·3 Special Act introduced a clause on the ex officio retrial for the defendants of courts-martial, while the legislature has been cautious about introducing ex officio retrials for the defendants of general trials. As is well-known, this is because it is evident that the courts-martial were related to Jeju 4·3, but some of the general trials may have involved defendants not related to Jeju 4·3.

Currently, the Jeju 4·3 Special Act does not explicitly introduce ex officio retrials for the victims of general trials. In this regard, the prosecution’s request in December 2022 for an ex officio retrial of the defendants of general trials is considered positive, although there still should be some improvements. In most of the general trials, there remains the written judgment, which makes it easy to confirm the identity of the accused and determine whether the crime is related to Jeju 4·3. Therefore, it is judged that the retrial process for these general trials will be somewhat easier than that for the courts-martial. I think it is time to consider whether it is necessary to revise the Jeju 4·3 Special Act to include an ex officio retrial clause on general trials.

What would be the remaining tasks?

Many people refer to “reconciliation and mutual prosperity” as the ultimate goal of resolving Jeju 4·3. It is also suggested that the day to achieve that goal will be when the Baekbi [a symbolic gravestone without an epitaph] in the Jeju 4·3 Peace Park will finally be erected. It is difficult for me to mention anything without being very careful because there must be many issues to be resolved and people have different thoughts and opinions. But at least concerning the retrials, I hope that you will consider the following points and work to find solutions.

Currently, requests have been made for ex officio retrials, irrespective of the convictions in general trials and courts-martial. But the eligibility of the defendants of these retrials presupposes the determination of his or her status as a victim as specified in the Jeju 4·3 Special Act. However, there are hundreds of defendants whose status as victims have yet to be determined. And chances are very low that the victim-status determination is to be made in the near future. The reason why the statuses of these people has not been determined as victims is that most of them do not have any family members left alive. Wouldn’t it be because the eligible defendant’s family members were killed without any trial at the time of Jeju 4·3? Although it is clear that the defendants suffered more devastating damage than those who died without family members did, there seems to be little possibility of restoring his or her honor through a retrial. Without a surviving family member, there is no one to request a retrial on his or her behalf. I am well aware that the prosecution is in a difficult position to request ex officio retrials for these people. If so, wouldn’t it be a remaining task for us to sincerely consider how to restore their honor?

Any last comment you would like to make?

The nation’s public has high expectations for the judicature’s role as the final authority to settle disputes. So, as a judge, it is very rewarding when not only retrial cases but all disputes are resolved fairly and rightly.

The retrial over the past three years is the fruit of your efforts. Undeniably, it helped discover the truth of Jeju 4·3 and restore honor to the victims. My favorite Jeju word is “Sunureum.” [Sunureum refers to the Jeju tradition of providing labor by turns to other members of the community.] Hopefully, anyone involved in this movement will refrain from being complacent about current achievements or emphasizing their individual contributions to those achievements. I expect that greater progress will be achieved by keeping in mind the ultimate goal to reach together over the long-term period of time, despite the difficulties. There remains a long path along which to walk.