Dr. Ji Man-won ©Hanmi IlboA new legal controversy is igniting within the legal and historical communities regarding the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement of 1980, which has been the most volatile powder keg in South Korean modern history for decades. 

Dr. Ji Man-won (CEO of System Club), who served time in prison for his research on the May 18 movement and was released upon full completion of his sentence last year, has launched a direct counterattack against the key figures of the May 18 organizations who previously sued him, represented by the law firm Chuyang Autumn Sunshine (Managing Partner Ko Young-il). The charge brought forth is "genocide," a crime to which the statute of limitations does not apply. 

According to the criminal complaint recently obtained by <Hanmi Ilbo>, Dr. Ji's side alleges fatal inconsistencies between the movements of individuals captured in photos from the May 18 incident and the points in time when the courts recognized their deaths. Consequently, they have filed a complaint with the Uiwang Police Station in Gyeonggi Province against the individuals depicted in those photographs. Experts suggest this is a precise legal counter-maneuver that strikes back at the very logic of the defamation convictions previously handed down to Dr. Ji by the judiciary. Our publication has conducted an intensive investigation into the background of this development. 

Uncovering the Flaws in the Judiciary’s ‘Gwang-su Ruling’ After Unjust Imprisonment 

Dr. Ji Man-won is regarded as a pioneer in May 18 research, having conducted academic studies and authored 17 history books on the subject over the past 24 years. With a unique background—graduating from the Korea Military Academy, serving in the Vietnam War, and obtaining a doctorate from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School before serving as a professor—he has delved into the hidden aspects of May 18 with his characteristic tenacity and analytical prowess. 

However, the price for seeking the truth was harsh. Dr. Ji was sued for defamation by Gwangju citizens Park Nam-sun and Ji Yong, who claimed to be the individuals in the photographs that Dr. Ji had identified as high-ranking North Korean military officials Hwang Jang-yop ("Gwang-su 71") and Oh Kuk-ryol ("Gwang-su 73"), respectively. 

The judiciary ruled in favor of the Gwangju side in all three trials, confirming that "the person in the photo is Park Nam-sun and Gwang-su 73 is indeed Ji Yong." As a result, Dr. Ji was imprisoned for two years, being released in January of last year. Coincidentally, the day of his release from prison was the same day President Yoon Suk-yeol appeared at the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), highlighting a stark contrast between two patriots who have fought against anti-state forces in history. 

Even during his painful incarceration, Dr. Ji prepared a card for a comeback. Paradoxically, the breakthrough he discovered was the very final judgment of the judiciary that had previously shackled him. 

The Combination of CIA Reports and Field Photos Reveals the Truth

The contradictions in the court's verdict raised by Dr. Ji's side have emerged as a major point of debate, bolstered by the integration of U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports and investigative findings from the media outlet *News & Commentary* (News-wa-nondan). 

According to the complaint, photos taken at the Jeonnam Provincial Office during the May 18 incident show men identified as an "armed arrest squad" escorting citizens into the provincial office. The court officially recognized Park Nam-sun as the chief of this "armed arrest squad" and Ji Yong as his second-in-command. 

Here, Dr. Ji's side presents declassified diplomatic cables from the U.S. government as evidence. A CIA document, declassified on May 11, 2020 (local time) and transferred to the South Korean government, contained shocking phrasing. 

A May 25 diplomatic cable, reported by the U.S. Embassy in Seoul or U.S. Forces Korea and signed by Secretary of State Edmund Muskie of the Carter administration for delivery to Deputy Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Holbrooke in Geneva, stated: “The situation in Kwangju is deteriorating. The moderate citizens’ committee has lost control and it appears that radicals are in charge. People’s courts have been set up and some executions have taken place.” 

U.S. Ambassador to South Korea William Gleysteen also reported to Washington in a cable on May 25, “EVEN OF PEOPLE'S COURTS AND EXECUTIONS.” 

There was a significant subsequent twist regarding this. According to our investigation, left-leaning U.S. investigative journalist Tim Shorrock reported on page 155 of his book *Gwangju Diary* that “Muskie had to retract those statements two days later.” 

According to the record, in a follow-up cable to Holbrooke, Muskie stated that “the situation in Gwangju remains quiet but tense” and requested caution, noting, “An earlier report that the insurgents had set up people’s courts and had carried out executions had not been fully confirmed and should be treated with caution.” 

This was based on KOREAN SITUATION REPORT NO. 8. The report informed Deputy Secretary Holbrooke that the existence of people’s courts had not been fully confirmed as of 7:00 AM on the 26th. 

“Not Fully Confirmed” Retraction... Yet “Armed Radicals Discussing Revolution Replaced Students” 

However, there were still suspicious points. 

The initial May 25 diplomatic cable signed by Secretary Muskie contained records regarding “unidentified armed radicals.” It also stated, “Student demonstrators have been largely replaced by unidentified armed radicals who are talking of setting up a revolutionary government.” 

Furthermore, the declassified documents released by Dr. Ji state that “the core extremists leading the Gwangju disturbance numbered about 550 (50 in leadership, 500 followers).” 

Consequently, in an article titled “The 5·18 Gwangju Incident and the Existence of People’s Courts (Subtitle: People Who Did Not Return by the Hands of the Citizen Militia)” published on May 12, 2024, *News & Commentary* reported the possibility that Gwangju citizens taken to the provincial office by armed forces may have been beaten to death by the militia. Additionally, after discovering and analyzing further field photographs, Dr. Ji believes that a total of four South Korean citizens, including Kim In-tae from Haenam and private tutor Kim Joong-sik, were taken into the provincial office and killed. 

Specifically, *News & Commentary* raised the possibility that the perpetrators were the militia, based on documents recording the cause of death of farmer Kim In-tae (48 at the time) as “bruising” and the testimony of his bereaved family member, Shim Bok-rye, inscribed on his gravestone. Her testimony reads: “I do not know if he died as soon as he was taken, or if he died right before being discarded after suffering from beatings. All I know for certain is that severe beating was the cause of death.” 

The cause of death for Kim Joong-sik (42) was recorded as “unknown.” 

*News & Commentary* stated, “The fact that people other than Kim In-tae or Kim Joong-sik were led away by the militia and never returned, ending in death without even being recognized as persons of national merit, allows us to sufficiently surmise that people’s courts were held.” 

Elderly Testimony and Discrepant Tracks Become a ‘Dead End’ for the Ruling

Until now, the courts have deemed the so-called "Gwang-su" claims, which identified the individuals in the photos as high-ranking North Korean figures (Hwang Jang-yop, Oh Kuk-ryol, etc.), to be false, determining them instead to be Gwangju citizens like Park Nam-sun and Ji Yong. 

However, Dr. Ji's side has directly targeted the court, arguing that it made an unreasonable ruling without even verifying basic facts. The most fatal contradiction, they claim, is revealed in the discrepancy between the individuals in the photos and the actual activities of the bereaved families. 

The Criminal Complaint. [Law Firm Chuyang Autumn Sunshine] The following is the logical basis provided by Dr. Ji's side in the complaint: 

“Regarding ‘Gwang-su No. 139,’ the court identified the person in the photo as an 80-year-old woman named Shin Bong-seop. However, in the testimony records of the bereaved family, Shin stated she only learned of her husband's death on May 30th. The photo recognized by the court, however, shows her wailing over her husband's coffin at the Provincial Office on May 23rd—a clear contradiction in common sense.” 

“Regarding ‘Gwang-su No. 62,’ the court recognized it as the same person as a 90-year-old woman named Kim Jin-soon, who was seen wailing in front of the Provincial Office on May 23rd. However, the records show she was only notified by the police that her son, who died during the attack on the prison, had passed away on June 30th, a month later.” 

Dr. Ji also raised the issue that while he argued, based on analysis by video and facial recognition experts, that the person identified as Gwang-su 73 clearly had the “upturned nose” characteristic of North Korea's Oh Kuk-ryol, the court accepted it as the Gwangju citizen Ji Yong. 

Based on these inconsistencies, Dr. Ji's side claims that the judiciary unreasonably matched the people in the photos to Gwangju citizens simply to establish a defamation conviction. 

Photo taken in May 1980. [Excerpt from page 9 of the complaint] 

“Gwangju Citizens or External Forces?”... Legal Logic at a Dead End 

Through separate research, Dr. Ji also determined that the number of armed militants mobilized to take the four Gwangju citizens away totaled 34. According to the court's ruling, the two identifiable ringleaders among these 34 are Park Nam-sun and Ji Yong. The identities of the remaining 32 remain veiled. 

Consequently, Dr. Ji's side is demanding a clear answer from the judiciary and the May 18 organizations regarding the identities of these 34 individuals. 

This is where the "dead-end" legal logic facing the judiciary arises. 

First, if the four deceased individuals were indeed Gwangju citizens, then Park Nam-sun and Ji Yong are inevitably complicit in murder, having forcibly taken South Korean citizens to be summarily executed via people’s courts. 

Based on the precedent of Bae Yong-ju, who was sentenced to death for running over Hampyeong police officers with a bus, the argument follows that they, too, should face severe punishment. 

Furthermore, Dr. Ji argues that if Gwangju citizens were massacring fellow Gwangju citizens, the logical basis for calling May 18 a “democratization movement” would be shaken to its core. 

Second, if they are not punished for murder, it implies they were not Gwangju citizens, which leads to the only other possible conclusion under Dr. Ji's argument: that they were external forces—specifically, "North Korean troops." This is the core of the complaint. 

Right-wing May 18 researchers interpret the court testimonies of Park Nam-sun and Ji Yong—who declared, "I am the person in the photo" to secure Dr. Ji's conviction—and the court's subsequent acceptance of those claims, as a sharp boomerang returning to tighten around their own necks. 

Photo taken in May 1980. [Excerpt from page 10 of the complaint]

“Calling for Severe Punishment for ‘Anti-Humanity Genocide’ Without Statute of Limitations”

The reason this complaint is making the legal community nervous lies in the charge itself. According to Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Act on the Statute of Limitations for Crimes against the Constitutional Order and Article 6 of the Act on the Punishment of Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), "genocide"—the killing of members of a specific group with the intent to destroy that group—is exempt from both the statute of limitations for prosecution and the statute of limitations for the execution of sentences. 

In an interview with <Hanmi Ilbo> last May, Dr. Ji Man-won, the complainant, urged strict punishment, stating, “This is a clear anti-humanity crime where extremists within the 5·18 protest ranks killed innocent citizens who opposed their line through people's courts,” adding, “This very ruling has become a fatal snare that trapped Gwangju and the judiciary themselves.” 

At a modern history lecture held at an L Business Center in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 25th of last month—the 76th anniversary of the Korean War—he also pointed out the contradictions between declassified U.S. documents, historically verified photos of the Jeonnam Provincial Office at the time, and the incongruent judicial rulings. 

“The Judges Must Know”... The Law on Distortion of Justice, Created by the Lee Administration, Becomes a Weapon for Counterattack 

It is Dr. Ji Man-won's argument, based on cold analysis, that the Gwangju May 18 organizations and the judiciary have not punished these two individuals, have no intention of doing so, and will never be able to do so in the future. 

He then mentioned the "law on distortion of justice" created by the Lee (Jae-myung) administration, remarking, "The judges themselves must inwardly know of this contradiction." This is interpreted as meaning that if Park Nam-sun and Ji Yong are not the actual killers, the likelihood of the individuals in the photos being external forces becomes strong, and the judges who knowingly handed down unreasonable guilty verdicts should also stand before the court of public opinion. Attendees at the lecture felt that Dr. Ji has uncovered the deepest underlying truth of May 18. 

Regarding this, Park Nam-sun, who served as the situation room chief at the Jeonnam Provincial Office during May 18, stated in a call with <Hanmi Ilbo>, "There were no people's courts." Park dismissed the claim, saying, “The only person taken at the time was a soldier, Sergeant Kim Ki-bum, who belonged to the Sangmudae unit, so we sent him back to Sangmudae. Other than that, we never took in ordinary citizens nor held people's courts.” 

He drew a line by stating, "I am a person who seeks to expose fake persons of merit and inform the public of the truth about May 18." When asked about *News & Commentary*'s citation of family members' remarks that the victims "came back dead," he replied, "That is a matter that should be revealed through the bereaved families." When asked if he had ever told Hwang Gyu-hak, the editor of *News & Commentary*, that he "did not know anything" in the past, he denied it, saying, "No." 

Regarding Ji Yong, Park said, "Ji Yong was outside (the Provincial Office) at the time," and added that he did not know his current contact information. Concerning the fact that he had been sued, he added, "It is the first I have heard of it," and "Since they have filed a complaint, I will undergo questioning (as the accused)." 

Editor Hwang (a pastor) said in a call with our publication, "I did visit and meet Park Nam-sun some years ago," and added, "The fact that the wife of the man who was taken away (Shim Bok-rye) acknowledged her husband had died, that there are photos of him being taken to the Provincial Office, that the CIA documents mentioned executions once, and that the cause of death was recorded as bruising, all point to this being a case that requires further investigation." 

Attention is now focused on how the police and the judiciary will respond to this precise legal struggle: will the judiciary, caught in the very trap they laid, put the “protagonists of Gwangju” in the defendant’s seat for genocide, or will they admit to a judicial error? 

Reporter Heo Gyeom 

☞Click: Read this article in English

[Exclusive Investigation] The Fatal Boomerang of the 5·18 ‘Gwang-su Ruling’… The ‘Genocide’ Bomb Thrown by Dr. Ji Man-won