Democratic Party files complaint against PPP lawmaker over Chun Doo-hwan remarks
Version 2: Kyunghyang Shinmun's report adds new details: the complaint was filed with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, the law carries a penalty of up to five years in prison or a 50 million won fine, the Democratic Party has proposed a bill to set up a parliamentary ethics committee to discuss disciplining Kim Tae-gyu, and Kim responded in a Facebook post on Oct. 1.
In short
The Democratic Party's legal committee said on Oct. 6 it filed a police complaint with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency against People Power Party lawmaker Kim Tae-gyu, alleging he violated the special law on the May 18 Democratization Movement by saying Chun Doo-hwan's actions were not an insurrection. Committee chairman Yang Bu-nam called the remark “anti-historical and anti-constitutional nonsense” that denies a Supreme Court ruling. Kim, his party's chief floor spokesperson, made the remark on a JTBC YouTube channel on Sept. 30 and said in a Facebook post on Oct. 1 that it was unfair to twist his meaning.
Read the full story 2 min read
The Democratic Party's legal committee said on Oct. 6 that it filed a police complaint against People Power Party lawmaker Kim Tae-gyu, alleging he violated the special law on the May 18 Democratization Movement. Yonhap reported the filing was made in the name of committee chairman Yang Bu-nam, and Kyunghyang reported the complaint was submitted to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency. Newsis also reported the complaint as concerning the May 18 democratization movement act, though its published article text did not carry the details. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
Kyunghyang reported that the law provides for up to five years in prison or a fine of up to 50 million won for spreading false facts about the May 18 Democratization Movement through media such as newspapers and broadcasts. The committee said in a statement that it is clearly established — through broad social consensus and criminal judicial proceedings — that the insurrection by Chun Doo-hwan and the new military group, and the citizens' resistance against it, are historical facts of the era in which the May 18 events took place. Yang called Kim's remark “anti-historical and anti-constitutional nonsense” that directly denies a final Supreme Court ruling and historical facts set out in law, and asked: “If Chun Doo-hwan was not an insurrection, does that mean the Gwangju citizens' resistance was not a democratization movement either?” [ 2 , 3 ]
Kyunghyang reported the Democratic Party also proposed a law on forming a parliamentary ethics committee to discuss disciplining Kim, and quoted Yang as saying Kim should bow his head and apologise to victims and bereaved families of the May 18 events, and that the party would otherwise pursue legal responsibility to the end. Kyunghyang also said the party argued that the rebellion by the new military group under Chun from Dec. 12, 1979, and the violent suppression and killing of citizens in Gwangju around May 18, 1980, were confirmed as insurrection by a Supreme Court en banc ruling 30 years ago — a characterisation the documents attribute to the party. [ 3 ]
Kim made the remarks on a JTBC YouTube channel on Sept. 30, according to Yonhap and Kyunghyang. Asked whether Chun was an insurrectionist, he said he thought he was not; asked again in light of a court ruling, he repeated that he did not think so, and he also answered “no” when asked whether Yoon Suk-yeol was. Kyunghyang reported that Kim, who serves as his party's chief floor spokesperson, wrote on Facebook on Oct. 1 that it was hard to accept that his meaning was being disparaged and the matter distorted over a single word, and that he believed the public would judge who was right. [ 2 , 3 ]
Why it matters
The complaint asks police to weigh whether a sitting lawmaker's description of the 1980 events breaches a special law that the Democratic Party says codifies facts already settled by the Supreme Court and by legislation. That moves a dispute over a contested historical claim into a criminal process, and the party has also moved to set up a parliamentary ethics committee that could discipline Kim. No document reports any police action or a response from the People Power Party, so the practical outcome is not yet known.
Key facts
- The Democratic Party's legal committee said on Oct. 6 that it filed a police complaint against People Power Party lawmaker Kim Tae-gyu. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- The complaint alleges a violation of the special law on the May 18 Democratization Movement. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- The committee said the complaint was filed in the name of its chairman, Yang Bu-nam, and Kyunghyang reported it was filed with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Kyunghyang reported the law provides for up to five years in prison or a fine of up to 50 million won for spreading false facts about the May 18 Democratization Movement through media. [ 3 ]
- Yang called Kim's remark “anti-historical and anti-constitutional nonsense” that directly denies a final Supreme Court ruling and historical facts set out in law. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Kim made the remark on a YouTube channel on Sept. 30, saying he did not think Chun's actions were an insurrection and also answering “no” when asked about Yoon Suk-yeol. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Kyunghyang reported Kim said in a Facebook post on Oct. 1 that it was hard to accept that his meaning was being disparaged and the matter distorted over a single word, and that he believed the public would judge who was right. [ 3 ]
- Kyunghyang reported the Democratic Party also proposed a law on forming a parliamentary ethics committee to discuss disciplining Kim. [ 3 ]
Confirmed by several sources
- The Democratic Party's legal committee filed a police complaint against People Power Party lawmaker Kim Tae-gyu over his statement that Chun Doo-hwan's actions were not an insurrection. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- The complaint alleges a violation of the special law concerning the May 18 Democratization Movement. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- The committee said the complaint was filed in the name of its chairman, Yang Bu-nam. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Yang described Kim's remark as “anti-historical and anti-constitutional” and as denying a Supreme Court ruling and facts set out in law. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Kim made the remarks on a YouTube channel on Sept. 30, saying he did not consider Chun's actions an insurrection and also saying “no” when asked about Yoon Suk-yeol. [ 2 , 3 ]
Still unclear
- Whether police have accepted the complaint, opened an investigation, or taken any action. No document reports a police response or any investigative step.
- The response of the People Power Party as an organisation to the complaint. Only Kim's personal Facebook post of Oct. 1 is reported, by Kyunghyang; no party statement appears in the documents.
- The precise terms of the court ruling on the 12·12 military rebellion and the May 18 crackdown. The description of a Supreme Court en banc ruling 30 years ago and its scope appears only in Kyunghyang, attributed to the Democratic Party.
- The full context and wording of Kim's YouTube remarks. Reported by Yonhap and Kyunghyang only as quoted by the Democratic Party and in summary; the Newsis document carries no body text on this event.
What local media are saying
Timeline, local time
- People Power Party lawmaker Kim Tae-gyu says on a YouTube channel that he does not consider Chun Doo-hwan's actions an insurrection, and also answers “no” when asked about Yoon Suk-yeol. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Kim writes on Facebook that it is hard to accept his meaning being disparaged and the matter distorted over a single word, and that the public will judge who is right. [ 3 ]
- Newsis reports that the ruling party filed a complaint against Kim Tae-gyu alleging a violation of the May 18 democratization movement act. [ 1 ]
- Yonhap reports that the Democratic Party's legal committee filed the police complaint against Kim in chairman Yang Bu-nam's name. [ 2 ]
- Kyunghyang reports the complaint was filed with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency and that the Democratic Party also proposed a law on forming a parliamentary ethics committee to discuss disciplining Kim. [ 3 ]