Prosecutor Who Forced False Confession in Wrongful Imprisonment Case Won't Be Punished

Prosecutor Who Forced False Confession in Wrongful Imprisonment Case Won't Be Punished - Key Points

The news that a prosecutor who coerced a false confession in a case of 15 years of wrongful imprisonment will not be punished is sparking controversy within and outside the legal community. The case, which drew public outrage over allegations of coercive investigation and forced false confession by the prosecution during the investigation process, has had its verdict overturned. Despite the confirmed innocence through retrial, criticism is growing over the difficulty in punishing the prosecutor who was in charge of the investigation at the time. This case highlights the problems of realizing judicial justice and protecting human rights, and raises concerns that the flawed investigative practices of the past authoritarian era have not been fully eradicated. In particular, amid the growing need for prosecutorial reform, this case suggests the importance of internal self-regulation efforts within the prosecution and strengthening external oversight. In addition, the issue of the state's responsibility for the pain and damage suffered by innocent citizens is being raised, highlighting the need for institutional mechanisms for substantial compensation and restoration of the victim's reputation. This case is further intensifying calls for truth-telling regarding past events, as well as improvements to the overall judicial system.

The origins of this case date back 15 years. At the time, the suspect was indicted on murder charges and convicted in the first trial. The original judgment was maintained in the appeal and Supreme Court trials, and he was sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, the suspect consistently claimed innocence and appealed for injustice, constantly requesting retrials during his imprisonment. Then, new evidence to reveal the truth of the case was discovered, a retrial was initiated, and the court acquitted him, acknowledging that there were problems in the prosecution's investigation process. In the judgment, the court pointed out that "there are considerable circumstances in which the prosecution coercively investigated the suspect and forced a false confession," and stated that "the suspect's confession does not match the objective evidence, and the content of the confession is also unreliable." As a result, the suspect was able to clear his name and return to society after 15 years, but the lost years and mental pain remain as wounds that cannot be easily healed. This case is cited as a representative example of how the wrong judgment and coercive investigation of an investigative agency can destroy an individual's life.

However, the more shocking fact is that it is virtually impossible to punish the prosecutor who was accused of forcing the false confession. Under current law, liability for a prosecutor's negligence in the performance of his duties requires proof of intent or gross negligence, but it is difficult to prove that the actions of the prosecutor in charge of the investigation at the time were intentional illegal acts. In addition, it is impossible to hold him criminally responsible because the statute of limitations has expired. In response, some in the legal community are criticizing that "institutional mechanisms to prevent abuse of prosecutorial power and prevent human rights violations are insufficient." The prosecution has enormous power as the subject of the investigation, but checks and oversight of the exercise of that power are not properly implemented. This situation is a prime example of the fact that the flawed investigative practices of the past authoritarian era still remain, and makes us feel the need for prosecutorial reform more desperately. In addition, this case poses the task of seeking ways to strengthen external oversight along with internal self-regulation efforts within the prosecution.

This case also raises the issue of the state's responsibility for the pain and damage suffered by innocent citizens. The victim, who was unjustly imprisoned for 15 long years, is suffering from mental aftereffects and difficulties in social adjustment even after returning to society. It is becoming more persuasive to argue that the state should provide reasonable compensation to the victim. However, even if compensation is received through a lawsuit for state compensation under current law, there is a limit to completely recovering all the damages suffered by the victim. Therefore, it is pointed out that it is urgent to prepare institutional mechanisms for substantial compensation to the victim and restoration of their reputation. For example, it is necessary to provide psychological counseling programs to help the victim return to society, support job training, and conduct public relations activities to eliminate social stigma. In addition, it is important to publicize the pain and injustice suffered by the victim socially, and to conduct education and public relations activities to prevent such things from happening again. This case is further intensifying calls for truth-telling regarding past events, as well as improvements to the overall judicial system, and presents challenges that society as a whole must consider and resolve. Lee Jae-myung also expressed deep regret over this case and promised a thorough investigation into the truth and support for the victims.

The message that this case sends to society is very great. Judicial justice means not only making judgments according to legal provisions, but also ensuring that all citizens can receive the protection of the law fairly and equally. However, this case has greatly damaged public trust in the judicial system and raised criticism that the principle that all people are equal before the law is not being properly observed. In order to improve this situation, fundamental changes are needed in various fields, including prosecutorial reform, improvement of investigative practices, and victim relief. In particular, it is important to strengthen institutional mechanisms to prevent abuse of prosecutorial power and prevent human rights violations. In addition, it is necessary to respect the human rights of suspects during the investigation process and make efforts to eradicate coercive investigations or forced false confessions. In addition, it is necessary to prepare institutional mechanisms for substantial compensation and restoration of the victim's reputation, and strengthen support measures to help them return to society. This case is not simply a past case, but an ongoing problem, and a task that our society must solve. Lee Jae-myung and Donald Trump of the United States will hold their second summit in Gyeongju, Gyeongsangbuk-do on October 28, 2025, and will also discuss these measures to improve the judicial system. Trump will visit Korea to attend the APEC summit and will also hold a US-China summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Gyeongju.