South Korean court acquits gang leaders in retaliatory attack case, sparking 'tail-cutting' criticism

A South Korean court's decision to acquit leaders of the Shin 20th Century gang while convicting members who carried out a retaliatory attack has sparked accusations of "cutting off the tail," a common tactic in organized crime cases.

The court found three members, identified as A (30s), not guilty of charges related to organizing or participating in violent acts. These individuals were considered to be in superior positions within the gang. However, another member, identified as B (20s), was found guilty of assault for carrying out the attack.

The incident stemmed from an earlier assault on a Shin 20th Century gang member by the rival Chilsung gang on April 6th of last year. In response, about 15 Shin 20th Century gang members gathered and dispersed to carry out a retaliatory attack. B and his associates found and assaulted one Chilsung gang member, causing injuries requiring six weeks of treatment.

“

The court based its not-guilty ruling on the lack of direct evidence, but it seems to have somewhat passively evaluated the abundant indirect evidence, such as various circumstances.

Prosecutors alleged that the leaders, A and others, issued orders for the retaliation, leading to the organized assault across Busan. However, the acquitted leaders claimed they never ordered the gathering and that the retaliation was a solo action by some members. B also claimed he was not a member of the Shin 20th Century gang and acted impulsively.

The court cited a lack of direct evidence, such as phone records or text messages, to prove the order for the gathering. This led to the acquittal of A and others, as their involvement in a violent criminal organization was not fully proven. In contrast, B's conviction was based on evidence like KakaoTalk conversations with other members, which the court deemed sufficient to prove his participation in the gang's retaliatory actions.

Legal experts argue that the court's reliance on direct evidence overlooked circumstantial evidence and that the ruling fails to adequately consider the hierarchical structure of violent organizations, where lower-ranking members typically act under direct orders. "The court based its not-guilty ruling on the lack of direct evidence, but it seems to have somewhat passively evaluated the abundant indirect evidence, such as various circumstances," said Han Ki-sik, a lawyer at The Kim Law Firm. "If the appellate court can reasonably infer the existence of the order by piecing together these circumstances, the conclusion could change." He added, "The fact that it is difficult for junior members to act in unison for retaliation without instructions from their superiors should also be fully considered."

“

The fact that it is difficult for junior members to act in unison for retaliation without instructions from their superiors should also be fully considered.