The case of the deportation of two fishermen to North Korea involved a complex mixture of legal, political and ethical considerations. But the point has been established, and the present author is satisfied with the result.
A brief review of the incident
The conservative media presents the story as “two North Korean fishermen who escaped to the South expressed their intention to stay in the ROK and even signed documents to that effect. However, the Moon administration ignored their wishes and sent them back to North Korea.” In fact, the situation was considerably more complex.
On November 2, 2019, during the “Olympic thaw” period, a fishing boat drifted into South Korean territorial waters where it was seized by the Republic of Korea’s Navy. On board were two fishermen in their early 20s, who expressed the wish to choose freedom, but also confessed that before fleeing to the South, they had murdered the other 16 crew members, first killing the captain in his cabin and then in turns calling the others to come into the captain’s cabin and bludgeoning them to death before dumping the bodies overboard.
On November 5, South Korean officials informed the DPRK of their intention to send the defectors back, and on November 7, the killer fishermen were handed over to North Korean justice as “fugitive criminals” in the inter-Korean truce village of Panmunjom. The boat was also sent back.
After the deportation, the Moon Jae-in administration was accused of “putting appeasement of North Korea above human rights by resorting to extreme and unjustified measures.” Moreover, it was revealed shortly afterwards that on November 5, 2019, Moon Jae-in had sent a personal letter to Kim Jong-un inviting him to the Special ROK-ASEAN Summit held on November 27, 2019. According to right-wing commentators, the two defectors were sent back as a concession or gift to encourage the DPRK leader to visit South Korea.
In July 2022, after the Conservatives came to power, the Ministry of Unification released videos and photos that sparked outrage from the public and human rights activists alike. The footage shows the two fishermen, despite their desperate resistance, being forcibly dragged away.
Issues and controversies
The story raised a number of controversial issues, or dilemmas, that can be summarized as follows.
From one point of view, criminals who “chose freedom” by trying to flee from a country where they committed murder are not welcome as refugees. From another perspective, since South Korea formally exercises jurisdiction over the entire peninsula, all defectors are considered to be South Korean citizens, and therefore there is no question of their extradition, let alone to a “tyrannical regime.” However, from a third perspective, North Korea is, de facto, an independent country, and even the United Nations has accepted both countries as separate members. The North-South agreements also legitimize the DPRK’s status as a state and not an “anti-state organization,” so applying the rules on refugee status to fugitives may be correct.
On the one hand, since there was no formal investigation, there was no trial, and therefore the fishermen should have the benefit of innocence. On the other hand, the statements of the killers themselves (the fact that the two confessed to the murders was confirmed even by conservative media) and the initial inspection of the boat were apparently enough to establish the fact of the crime, and having realized what kind of people they were, to justify their return to the DPRK.
Let us add to this that the punishment for the murder of a group of persons with particular cruelty is the same in both North and South Korea, and therefore the claim that “the Moon administration sent the fishermen to their deaths” is politically biased. Moreover, the United Nations Command (UNC), which oversees any movement through the DMZ, approved the deportation. And, according to public opinion polls, 58.9% of respondents versus 33.5% supported the choice of the authorities.
In such a situation (focusing on formal law, political conjuncture or ethical principles) it is possible to reach different decisions, but the Moon government has decided that mass murder with particular brutality, of which there is plenty of evidence, is sufficient reason to deny those seeking asylum.
The trial and its outcome
For the right-wing, the story proved that Moon Jae-in’s administration was pursuing a pro-North Korea policy, sacrificing innocent lives for ephemeral gain. The servility of South Korean officials is well known, and on June 6, 2022 the South Korean National Intelligence Service filed complaints with the prosecutor’s office against those involved in the story.
In February 2023, the prosecutors’ office indicted four officials of ministerial rank: former chief of the National Security Office of the South Korean Presidential Administration Chung Eui-yong, former South Korean National Intelligence Service Director Suh Hoon, former Presidential Chief of Staff Noh Young-min, and former Minister of Reunification Kim Yeon-chul. There was no reason to implicate Moon himself, but key figures in his government’s security and inter-Korean relations were under attack, and imprisoning them, the conservatives thought, would demonstrate the criminality of their conduct in appeasing the North.
On January 14, 2025, the trials began. The four officials were accused of pressurizing the relevant government agencies to deport the fishermen, in spite of their wish to move to South Korea. The sessions were held behind closed doors to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information related to national security, but the final sentencing hearing would be public.
On February 19, 2025, the Seoul Central District Court found the four defendants guilty of abuse of power and obstruction of duty. All received suspended sentences: Chung Eui-yong and Suh Hoon were sentenced to ten months each, and Noh Young-min and Kim Yeon-chul to six months each. In addition they were all barred from holding any positions in national politics for five years, although it seems that none of them have any such ambitions.
Of course, this is a first instance decision and the investigators will appeal. Conservative media outlets have also expressed their dissatisfaction with the court’s decision: “South Korea must never forget that these defectors have the right to protection as South Korean citizens. It is also necessary to clarify whether former President Moon was completely unaware of the forced repatriation or, if he was briefed, to what extent he was involved. South Korea must never again return defectors against their will out of deference to North Korea.”
What was important in the court’s verdict?—the present author’s view
The court stated that the defendants made the decision to return the fishermen back to North Korea only two days after their detention and carried it out within five days solely on the basis of their own confessions that they had killed their fellow fishermen, with no due diligence process. However, the court recognized that in such cases there were no clear rules or legal system they could rely on to make a decision, and also took into account the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed by the killer fishermen.
The court stated that the idea of allowing State authorities to deprive individuals of their fundamental rights without trial simply because they are criminals is “an extremely dangerous idea.” But the court also expressed concern about the timing of the indictments, noting that the four defendants were indicted three years after the incident, and after a change in administration in 2022.
The court ultimately justified its decision as the “most reasonable” result that “recognizes the unlawfulness of the defendants’ conduct while not imposing any actual term of imprisonment.” The formal breach of law, as alleged by the Conservatives, quite rightly, was confirmed by the court, and the defendants were therefore found guilty, but the punishment imposed is minimal, and essentially symbolic. This is a rare decision that complies both with the letter of the law and with the demands of fairness.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of China and Modern Asia, Russian Academy of Sciences
