On the 14th, the Hanmi Ilbo filed a constitutional appeal against the 'May 18 Special Act'. Attorney Park Joo-hyun (left) and Oh Sang-jong, head of the Korean Freedom and Patriotic Group, are holding a press conference before the submission. 

The May 18 Special Act, which has caused extreme national division by forcing an interpretation solely as a 'democratization movement' based on political judgment, despite the Supreme Court's final ruling in 1981 classifying it as 'Kim Dae-jung's rebellion,' is finally being brought before the Constitutional Court. 

On the 14th, Hanmi Ilbo Co., Ltd., its CEO Heo Gyeom, and columnists filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court requesting a declaration of unconstitutionality for Article 8, Clause 1, Subparagraph 1 of the 'Special Act on the May 18 Democratization Movement, etc. (May 18 Special Act),' which stipulates penalties. 

The petitioners pointed out, "Article 8, Clause 1, Subparagraph 1 of this Act stipulates a penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won for spreading false information regarding the May 18 Democratization Movement." They stated, "This provision forces the state to exclusively control historical truth and uses it as a tool to control the media and thought." 

Specifically, they argued for its unconstitutionality based on the grounds that it △ violates the principle of legality and clarity, △ infringes upon the state's monopoly on historical truth and freedom of expression, △ raises international concern and causes a 'chilling effect,' and ④ violates the principle of equality and prevents the formation of a privileged class. 

Attorney Park Joo-hyun (Law Office Hwanggeumryul), who represented the appeal, stated, "Discussions about historical facts should take place in an arena of free debate and academic verification, not in court." He added, "Attempts to silence even reasonable criticism, such as suspicions about fraudulent merit recipients, through criminal penalties are unacceptable in a liberal democratic state."

Attorney Park further emphasized, "Through this constitutional appeal, we hope that the Republic of Korea will be reborn as a nation with freedom of the press that aligns with international human rights standards."

CEO Heo stated, "A law that forces the interpretation of historical events from only one perspective is an unprecedentedly ignorant law worldwide and should be abolished immediately." He demanded, "Criminal sanctions must be imposed on the May 18 Foundation for its indiscriminate filing of lawsuits and complaints against journalists and scholars using this baseless law, while simultaneously maximizing their own interests by producing fraudulent merit recipients." 

He added, "The May 18 Foundation has repeatedly claimed that the rights of merit recipients have been violated, but it will not be too late to identify merit recipients after the facts of the case are revealed through academic verification and fair investigation. We cannot rule out the possibility that some of those who have claimed to have rights may not have been eligible as merit recipients from the beginning." 

Previously, on October 30th of last year, the Civil Appeals Division 1 of the Gwangju High Court (Judges Lee Ui-young, Jo Soo-min, and Jeong Jae-woo) for the first time stated in the 12th page of the appellate judgment for Dr. Ji Man-won that "it can be seen that there is a possibility that small-scale operatives or fixed spies from North Korea were active during the May 18 democratization movement." 

Furthermore, a declassified US State Department cable ('80SEOUL 006865') reported to Washington that "'impure elements' and communist instigators lay behind the whole affair," and CIA documents also contain the terms "'infiltrators' (North Korean infiltrators)" and "'communist instigators' (fixed spies or revolutionary forces)." 

It has been pointed out that the hasty inclusion of May 18 in the preamble of the Constitution, despite there being more unrevealed truths than revealed ones, reflects the impatience of those who wish to use May 18 as a symbolic propaganda tool. 

In addition to CEO Heo, the constitutional appeal was joined by advisors Kim Tae-san, editorial board member Park Pil-gyu, and columnist Jeong Jae-hak (poet) as petitioners. CEO Heo was recently detained after the police sought an arrest warrant based on his reporting of May 18, but was released when the court dismissed the warrant, stating there were "no grounds."