Is Korea ready for the threat of political violence and terror?

Home > Opinion > Columns

Is Korea ready for the threat of political violence and terror?

Published: 02 Apr. 2025, 00:04

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Jhe Seong-ho
The author is a professor emeritus of law at the Chung-Ang University Law School.

Misinformation is rampant. Confirmation bias — where people seek out only the information they want to hear — is deepening. These trends are closely tied to widening socioeconomic inequality and the entrenchment of partisan worldviews. Social media platforms now routinely serve as breeding grounds for incitement and aggression.

The situation has worsened in the lead-up to the Constitutional Court’s April 4 ruling on President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment. Pro- and anti-impeachment camps have escalated their rallies, growing more confrontational by the day. There have been incidents of violence against police and even an egg thrown at a sitting lawmaker. In some cases, political tensions have led to open threats targeting senior politicians and judges.

People opposed to President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment hold a protest across the street from the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 19. [NEWS1]

Though Korea has long endured a “psychological civil war” driven by political and ideological divides, the current impeachment saga has poured fuel on the fire. Still, we must draw the line at acts of violence or zero-sum political warfare. These only undermine social order and national stability. Above all, the ruling and opposition parties must publicly commit to accepting the Constitutional Court’s decision. A political truce is needed — and with it, a cooldown period.

In response to the tension, police have deployed large mobile units to keep opposing protest groups apart and, when necessary, disperse crowds by force. Around the Constitutional Court, vehicle barricades have been installed to tighten security. These measures are appropriate, but they must be balanced with efforts to minimize disruption to daily life, including the movement of ordinary citizens and businesses.

Judges handling the impeachment case, as well as those presiding over politically sensitive trials, must be protected without fail. Security details should be in place. Prosecutors and police must act swiftly and decisively in response to any illegal threats or acts of violence.

At the same time, this is an opportunity to strengthen Korea’s legal framework for counterterrorism. Recently, a man in his 30s was arrested after posting a threat on social media suggesting he would use weapons and flammable materials to cause chaos if the impeachment ruling went against President Yoon. Prosecutors sought a detention warrant under Article 116-2 of the Criminal Act, which pertains to public intimidation. However, Suwon District Court dismissed the request, citing insufficient grounds to justify pretrial detention.

The “public intimidation” charge was added to the criminal code in 2023 in response to a spate of irrational mass violence, including high-profile stabbings at Seohyeon Station in Seongnam, Gyeonggi, and Sillim Station in Seoul. The new provision acknowledged growing online threats and the limitations of the existing criminal code. However, with the first-ever detention request under this statute now rejected, police must closely review the court’s reasoning, reconsider their investigation strategy and determine whether to reapply for a warrant.

An unidentified man enters the Seoul Western District Court through a broken window in Mapo District, western Seoul, on Jan. 19. [NEWS1]

This moment also calls for a reassessment of the 2016 Anti-Terrorism Act. The law’s definition of terrorism remains too narrow. In contrast, the United States and Europe apply a broader understanding of terrorist threats. California’s penal code, for instance, classifies not only bombings or poison attacks as terrorism, but also includes any act intended “to instill public fear.” Britain's antiterror laws go even further, labeling as terrorism any act — political, religious, or ideological — intended to influence government policy or intimidate the public or a segment of it.

Korea’s current law, by contrast, imposes a “subjective intent” requirement that makes terrorism a purpose-driven crime. Unless prosecutors can prove this intent, charges may not hold. It’s time to amend the law so that indiscriminate threats to public safety — regardless of explicit political motivation — can be prosecuted as acts of terror.

Moreover, Korea lacks a clear system for determining whether a particular act qualifies as terrorism. This has lead authorities to default to ordinary criminal law rather than activate counterterrorism protocols. The government must establish a clear, public process for assessing and declaring acts of terrorism.

Article 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act addresses the tracking of terror suspects and the conduct of counterterrorism investigations. But its provisions are vague and overly general. There are no detailed regulations in the enforcement decree, which has left counterterrorism investigations functioning more like administrative inquiries than serious pre-emptive measures. For investigations to be effective, detailed procedures, methods and legally sanctioned enforcement tools must be laid out. Coercive measures, where appropriate, should be clearly defined and tightly regulated.

Finally, Korea should follow the lead of other advanced democracies by introducing harsher penalties on acts of terrorism, along with a separate legal provision for the crime of inciting it.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.