Appeals Court Acquits Man Over May 18 Uprising ‘Riot’ Post
A Daegu appellate court overturned a fine imposed on a man who described the May 18 Democratic Uprising as a riot, ruling that the offensive characterization was an opinion rather than a false factual claim.
A South Korean appellate court has acquitted a man who called the May 18 Democratic Uprising a “riot” in an online post, ruling that the expression represented a personal assessment rather than the dissemination of false information.
The appellate division of the Daegu District Court on Friday overturned a lower court judgment that had fined the 45-year-old defendant 1 million won, or about $700. He had been charged under legislation prohibiting the spread of false information about the 1980 pro-democracy uprising in Gwangju.
The case stemmed from a post the man uploaded in May 2021 to Ilbe, a far-right online community known for inflammatory material and posts disparaging the uprising. In the post, he argued that the military crackdown was justified because some civilians had armed themselves. He also questioned the designation of participants as pro-democracy activists.
A lower court concluded that describing the uprising as a riot amounted to false information and that the defendant had knowingly circulated it. The appeals court disagreed, finding that a negative characterization of the historical event could not automatically be treated as a false statement of fact.
According to the appellate ruling, the word “riot” can carry different meanings and was used in this instance to express the defendant’s opinion about the event. The court made clear that its decision did not endorse that description or suggest it accorded with the established historical understanding of the uprising. It instead drew a legal distinction between an offensive or critical opinion and a factual assertion that can be punished as false.
The judges said expressions of this kind should be answered through historical reflection and public debate rather than by extending criminal penalties beyond the law’s proper reach. The ruling therefore turns on the boundary between protected opinion and punishable falsehood, not on a reassessment of the uprising itself.
The May 18 Democratic Uprising began in Gwangju in 1980 as citizens resisted the military rule of Chun Doo-hwan, who had taken power following a military coup. Government troops violently suppressed the movement, killing and injuring civilians. It is officially recognized in South Korea as a landmark struggle for democracy.
The appellate decision highlights the challenge courts face when laws designed to protect the historical record intersect with freedom of expression. Although the contested characterization remains contrary to the accepted account of May 18, the court found that criminal liability could not rest solely on the fact that the defendant’s opinion was offensive or sharply critical.