The Hankyoreh: “A Truth Commission Member Who Calls Himself a ‘Centrist’ on Overseas Adoption and the Insurrection.”
Paperslip Note:
To understand the context of the article below, please see:
Who are the Commissioner and Members for The Third Subcommittee for TRC 3?
We very recently posted this to our BLOG, which is very apropos in this context:
What is the objective of submitting as many Adoptee cases as possible to TRC 3, regardless of evidence, given its limited mandate, timeframe, and capacity?
The article below is an in-depth interview with Standing Commissioner Jang Young-soo, a conservative People Power Party (PPP) appointee to the Third Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC 3).
Commissioner Jang chairs the newly established Third Subcommittee, which is responsible for investigating cases involving institutional facilities and overseas adoptees.
It is important to note Commissioner Jang's emphasis on the need for evidence to support overseas adoption cases submitted to TRC 3. At the same time, “Adoptee Rights” organizations have been encouraging all overseas adoptees to file applications with TRC 3, regardless of the amount of evidence available in their individual cases.
We are not endorsing the view that only cases supported by substantial documentary evidence are worthy of investigation, as we recognize that the absence of records and documentation is itself a massive human rights issue in many overseas adoption cases.
However, we believe it is important for Adoptees to understand the reality of how TRC 3 is describing the scope and limitations of its investigative process and what Commissioners themselves have said about the role evidence in Adoptees’ cases is likely to play in their decisions.
It’s also important to understand that TRC 3 is a highly political process, and the political affiliation of its Commissioners may certainly shape their decision making processes. The Standing (lead) Commissioner for TRC 3’s Third Subcommittee, who is profiled in “The Hankyoreh” article below, is a conservative PPP appointee — who is self described as a “centrist”.
Please note that “The Hanyoreh” is a left leaning Korean paper.
For those Adoptees who feel they have significant evidence in their cases, we encourage you to submit your case INDEPENDENTLY to TRC 3. We do not sugarcoat the fact that you will likely need evidence in your case in order to have it accepted for investigation by TRC 3.
Please see:
Paperslip links related to submitting your case INDEPENDENTLY to TRC 3.
Should I submit requests for my Korean adoption documents and /or a birth family search through NCRC, or should I file a case with TRC 3 instead?
+
The Hankyoreh Article:
“A Truth Commission Member Who Calls Himself a ‘Centrist’ on Overseas Adoption and the Insurrection.”
+
Original Korean article published in The Hankyoreh on July 9th, 2026.
Please see the original Korean article linked above for photos.
ChatGPT English translation posted to Paperslip on July 9th, 2026.
Thank you to a Paperslip Contributor for the link.
Some BOLDS and blue highlighting ours.
We have highlighted in blue the information most relevant to Korean Adoptees.
Please note that the article also discusses cases which are not related to overseas adoption. In some cases, we have highlighted in blue information being discussed outside the topic of overseas adoption, which would also generally apply to this topic. Please read carefully to understand the context of our highlighted information.
+
By Ko Kyung-tae
Published: July 9, 2026, 5:02 a.m.
Updated: July 9, 2026, 7:34 a.m.
Hello Truth Commission ㉚
A conversation with Standing Commissioner Jang Young-soo, chair of the Third Subcommittee
Photo caption:
Standing Commissioner Jang Young-soo of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission speaks with The Hankyoreh in his office on the sixth floor of the Namsan Square Building in Jung-gu, Seoul, on the morning of July 7. (Photo by Kim Hye-yoon)
The Korean greeting "annyeong" means both hello and goodbye.
The Third Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) held its first full commission meeting on July 3, (2026) with all 13 commissioners present. It came four months after the commission was inaugurated on February 26, (2026) and about seven months after the second commission completed its work (in late 2025). The hiring of investigators is also nearing completion.
"Hello Truth Commission" is an occasional series that looks back on the second commission and ahead to the third, capturing the determination and hopes of those involved in uncovering historical truths.
Goodbye, Truth Commission! Hello, Truth Commission!
"I've always considered myself a centrist."
As soon as he sat down, I asked what he thought about his public reputation as "a leading conservative, right-wing legal scholar."
His response was an emphatic rejection.
He said that he simply makes legal judgments from a neutral standpoint.
He explained that:
In 2004, when he opposed the impeachment of President Roh Moo-hyun, people labeled him progressive.
In 2013, when he supported dissolving the Unified Progressive Party, people called him conservative.
Now, because he does not describe the December 3 emergency martial law declaration as an "insurrection," he is labeled right-wing.
His point was that, even though he consistently bases his conclusions on what he believes to be the truth, others evaluate him according to their own political preferences.
I met Jang Young-soo (66), a standing commissioner (vice minister-level) of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, on the morning of July 7 in his office in Seoul.
After being nominated by the People Power Party, he was approved by a vote of the National Assembly on April 23 and officially appointed by the president on June 24, beginning his duties two months later.
On the day of his appointment, the commission described him in a press release as:
"Professor Emeritus at Korea University's Law School and a legal scholar with experience investigating historical injustices, having served as a commissioner during the second Truth and Reconciliation Commission."
Jang will chair the newly created Third Subcommittee, which will oversee investigations into institutional confinement facilities and overseas adoption cases.
The other members are:
Kim Young-joo
Kim Jung-ha (both recommended by the Democratic Party)
Choi Chang-ho (recommended by the People Power Party)
Jang is likely to become the longest-serving commissioner in the commission's history.
He completed a two-year term as a non-standing commissioner during the second commission, was reappointed for another two years, and has now returned as a standing commissioner in the third commission.
If he completes his current term ending June 23, 2028, he will have served six years as a commissioner—and could potentially be reappointed again.
Previously, Commissioner Jeong Byeong-seok, nominated by the Chief Justice during the first commission, began a third term but served only four years and seven months because the commission itself was dissolved after seven months.
Photo caption:
Photos of overseas adoptees as babies or young children that they sent to The Hankyoreh after sharing their stories in May 2023.
During the second commission, Jang was generally regarded as one of its more moderate members.
Commissioners and investigators recommended by the Democratic Party remember him as:
"A People Power Party-appointed commissioner who occasionally expressed independent convictions."
On issues such as:
the suspension of admissions at Hanshin University under the 1980 martial law,
military suspicious death cases,
and cases involving fishermen abducted by North Korea,
he did not automatically side with the other conservative commissioners and often voiced independent opinions.
However, critics argue that when it came time to decide particularly sensitive cases—such as the Jindo–Yeongcheon case and the Baek Rak-jeong case (whose truth-finding decision was overturned after military court records were discovered)—he ultimately sided with the conservative bloc.
Jang has also drawn controversy for saying regarding the December 3 emergency martial law declaration that:
"It has not yet been established whether it constituted an insurrection."
His position, expressed both in an interview with The Hankyoreh and at a People Power Party lawmakers' meeting, can be summarized as follows:
"The December 3 emergency martial law declaration was unconstitutional and illegal because it failed to satisfy the legal requirements for martial law. However, whether it amounted to insurrection has not yet been established, because testimony conflicts over whether former President Yoon Suk Yeol ordered the arrest of National Assembly members."
Regarding the Constitutional Court's impeachment ruling, he argued that the central issue in determining the "serious illegality" of the martial law declaration was whether it constituted insurrection, and that the Court reached its decision without resolving that question.
However, during Yoon's impeachment proceedings, the National Assembly prosecutors removed the charge of insurrection from the impeachment articles.
Accordingly, the Constitutional Court did not base its impeachment decision on whether the crime of insurrection had been committed.
Instead, the Court ruled that former President Yoon had:
attempted to overcome political conflict with the opposition-controlled 22nd National Assembly by deploying military forces;
declared martial law without satisfying the substantive constitutional requirements and without following the required legal procedures.
The Court further held that:
"Even if he believed the political situation was causing serious harm to the national interest, he should have responded through the democratic procedures and methods provided for in the Constitution and laws."
It concluded that Yoon:
"recreated the history of abuses of emergency powers, shocking the public and causing confusion across society, the economy, politics, and diplomacy."
The Court therefore found that he had committed a serious violation of the Constitution and upheld his impeachment.
Moreover, impeachment exists to immediately suspend a public official's powers when they violate the Constitution or the law.
Waiting until after a final criminal conviction would run contrary to the purpose of the impeachment system.
Under Jang's reasoning, critics argue, impeachment could not occur until the Supreme Court issued a final ruling on whether Yoon committed insurrection.
For this and other reasons, Jang's views on the insurrection issue have been widely criticized.
Although the purpose of the interview was to ask the chair of the Third Subcommittee about how investigations and decisions would proceed in cases involving institutional facilities and overseas adoption, discussion of the emergency martial law declaration ended up taking much longer.
While it is not one of the third commission's current investigative matters, the interviewer considered it an important issue revealing Jang's understanding of historical justice.
Jang's view that investigations into overseas adoption should focus on document falsification, together with his position that it remains unclear whether the martial law declaration constituted insurrection, is likely to provoke strong objections.
However, the purpose of the interview was not to argue with him.
Rather, the aim was first to hear in full the views of someone who now bears major responsibility within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Jang said he had never once raised his voice during meetings of the second commission's full board.
Throughout the interview, he spoke so softly that I worried the recording might not capture him clearly.
When I mentioned this, he laughed and replied:
"It's the voice I was born with. What can I do?"
The interview follows in question-and-answer format.
Photo caption:
Standing Commissioner Jang Young-soo of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is interviewed by The Hankyoreh in his office on the sixth floor of the Namsan Square Building in Jung-gu, Seoul, on the morning of July 7. (Photo by Kim Hye-yoon)
— You served for four years as a non-standing commissioner during the second Truth and Reconciliation Commission. What motivated you to apply to become a standing commissioner?
Jang:
"While serving on the second commission, I had many opportunities to hear candid accounts of the pain caused by historical injustices. As a constitutional law scholar, I found many occasions to empathize deeply with those experiences. I thought that if I could help heal some of that pain, it would be meaningful work.
During the second commission, I generally spoke from what I considered a relatively centrist position. I think the People Power Party probably appreciated that and decided to recommend me."
— My understanding is that during the second commission's deliberations, you quite often took positions different from the other commissioners recommended by the People Power Party.
Jang:
"People can naturally have different views on individual cases based on their own convictions. Everyone expresses their opinion according to the procedures, and if your view differs from the majority, you simply record a dissenting opinion.
Some commissioners went beyond that—they pressed their views so forcefully that voices were raised, and people even walked out of meetings. I was usually the one who went to bring those who had left back into the room. I'd like to think I played at least a small role in mediating conflicts between commissioners recommended by the ruling and opposition parties."
— After Chair Kim Kwang-dong took office during the second commission, there was considerable controversy over alleged ideological bias—for example, reviewing whether victims had been "collaborators." Many critics argued that this ran contrary to the commission's original mission. How did you view that?
Jang:
"In some government documents, the victims were described as 'collaborators,' which became controversial.
The commission, by majority vote, simply quoted those documents as they were. If you want to reject an official government document, you need other clear evidence to do so.
Government documents are not automatically 100 percent accurate. But if you're discussing a case based on those documents, I also don't think it's right to say, 'Because the word collaborator appears, it must automatically be wrong and unacceptable.'"
— The example you're referring to is the Korean War-era killings by military and police forces in Jindo and Yeongcheon. In the Jindo case, for example, police records described one victim as a member of an "assassination squad," but critics argued there was little evidence supporting that claim and that it was essentially fabricated. Experts also concluded that "the assassination squad did not exist."
Jang:
"These Truth Commission cases concern events that happened decades ago, and they're difficult because there's very little evidence or very few surviving witnesses. In many cases there are none at all.
Ultimately, we have no choice but to rely on whatever evidence remains.
Suppose the only surviving evidence is a document written by the police. Since it's essentially one police officer's opinion, you may reasonably question how accurate it is.
But then again, if that's all we have, what else can we do?
If this were a recent event, we could look for circumstantial evidence and locate witnesses. But the eyewitnesses and witnesses from that time have all passed away...”
Photo caption:
Jang Young-soo enters the sixth-floor conference room where the full commission meeting was held on November 19, 2024, during the second Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (Photo by Kim Tae-hyung)
— There are still reference witnesses, aren't there? And isn't the poor state of the historical record itself the state's responsibility?
Jang:
"I don't think you can simply call it the state's responsibility.
The state can't reasonably be held responsible for every old event in that way.
Generally speaking, legal liability arises when there has been intent or negligence, and I don't think that standard applies here.
The real question is this: if that document had not existed, would the outcome have been different?
If all you have is the applicant's claim, with no documents or any other evidence either supporting or contradicting it, then it's impossible to establish the truth."
— International tribunals dealing with genocide or crimes against humanity, such as the International Criminal Court, often give the benefit of the doubt to civilians or victims when decisive evidence is lacking. Don't they?
Jang:
"Our legal system also resolves doubts in favor of the victim or the defendant.
But that's when evidence exists and its meaning is unclear.
If there's no evidence whatsoever, and all you have is the applicant's statement, what are you supposed to do?
Should we simply recognize every claim made by anyone who says they suffered harm? That doesn't make sense."
**— Wouldn't investigators normally filter out unsupported claims during the investigation because they wouldn't find them credible?
On another subject, two major issues during the second commission were the decision to open an investigation into civilian massacres during the Vietnam War, and the cancellation of the truth-finding decision in the Baek Rak-jeong case along with the dismissal of the application. You opposed opening the Vietnam War investigation and supported canceling the Baek Rak-jeong decision. Has your position changed?**
Jang:
"Fundamentally, if new evidence, new testimony, or new legal standards emerge during the investigation, my position could change.
Otherwise, I don't think it would."
**— In both cases, though, the issue seems less about new evidence than about legal interpretation.
For the Vietnam War case, the question was whether harm suffered by foreign nationals overseas falls within the jurisdiction of the Framework Act on Clearing Up Historical Incidents (the law governing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission).
For the Baek Rak-jeong case, the issue was how to evaluate procedural defects in a death sentence imposed by a military tribunal under the National Defense Security Act.**
Jang:
"With the Vietnam War case, opinions differed over whether, as a matter of interpreting the law, harm suffered by foreign nationals could be included within the commission's jurisdiction.
In the end, the majority concluded that it could not, and I still agree with that interpretation.
As for the Baek Rak-jeong case, he had originally been recognized as someone who was massacred in the National Guidance League incident, and the commission established the truth on that basis.
At the time, none of the people taken there survived.
But later, another document surfaced showing that he had not died there—that he had instead been sentenced to death by a military tribunal.
That meant the commission's original finding was factually incorrect."
— Some argued that whether he was killed in the National Guidance League massacre or executed after a military tribunal, the essential nature of the case was the same—it was state violence. They said the commission should not have revoked the truth-finding decision but instead should have recognized it as a different form of historical injustice.
Jang:
"Suppose one account says someone was harmed by the police in Seoul, while another says they were killed by soldiers in Daegu or Busan.
Those are completely different events.
One of them cannot be the truth.
So, as I understand it, during this third commission the victim's family has submitted a new application arguing that the problem was not the National Guidance League incident but that he was wrongfully executed after a military tribunal.
That means the case will need to be reconsidered on that basis."
+
Photo caption:
A 1987 photograph showing the Brothers Home facility in the hills of Samjeong-ri, Cheongnyang-myeon, Ulju County, South Gyeongsang Province. Residents were confined in converted cattle sheds fitted with iron bars to prevent escape and were subjected to forced labor. (Yonhap News)
— As chair of the Third Subcommittee, you will oversee truth-finding investigations into institutional confinement facilities. Are there any facilities in particular that you're paying close attention to?
Jang:
"My first day at the third Truth and Reconciliation Commission was June 24. It's only been about two weeks.
Right now, I'm concentrating on the overseas adoption cases, because those cases were not handled as thoroughly as the institutional confinement cases. I've been continuously reading relevant materials, studying them, and discussing them with other commissioners and staff preparing for the investigations.
The case that affected me the most emotionally during the second commission was the Seongam Academy child human rights abuse case. It was the first institutional case I encountered. I even visited the former Seongam Academy site in Seongam-dong, Danwon District, Ansan, Gyeonggi Province, where I met victims in person. I think that's why it struck me so deeply.
I can't single out any one institutional case that absolutely must be resolved during the third commission. As you investigate these cases, you feel the pain that applicants have carried with them for decades. There isn't a single case that isn't heartbreaking.
There are a very small number of cases that completely lack credibility, but those are uncommon.
In any event, we intend to do our best on every case."
+
Paperslip Note — TRIGGER WARNING:
Seongam Academy has an important historical connection to KSS, through KSS’ founder Kun Chil Paik / Alternately: Baek Geun-chil / Paik, Kun Chil / 백근칠, who was a past Vice President and President of Seongam Academy — a notorious concentration camp for boys — in the 1950s, prior to his establishment of KSS in 1964. Paperslip was the first to bring to KSS Adoptees’ attention this historical connection — as we were informed directly of this connection by sources in Korea in 2020.
In Korea, Seongam Academy is well known, but few Adoptees were previously aware of this former concentration camp for boys, which was begun under Japanese occupation, and continued under successive S. Korean governments. Few KSS Adoptees were previously aware of the connection of KSS’ founder to Seongam Academy.
You can find many posts we have made about Seongam Academy by using this search trick on DuckDuckGo (or Google).
+
Photo caption:
On April 30 last year, after a public briefing by Gyeonggi Province on its excavation of human remains at the former communal cemetery of Seongam Academy—identified as a suspected burial site for children—victims gathered for a photograph. (Photo by Jeong Yong-il)
— Many people point to the application-based system as one of the major limitations of the second commission. The third commission is expected to expand investigations initiated on the commission's own authority, even without applications, in cases considered especially significant. Are there any such investigations you think the Third Bureau should undertake?
Jang:
"The second commission also conducted some ex officio investigations, but they had to remain very limited because of constraints in staffing and time.
Even though we focused mainly on cases brought by applicants, we still had no choice but to suspend investigations into 2,111 cases.
If we had conducted many more investigations on our own initiative, the number of suspended cases would have been much higher.
The third commission first has to deal with those suspended cases, and the number of new applications filed during the comparable period is even higher than it was for the second commission.
We have limited personnel and limited time, yet the creation of the Third Bureau means we have even more cases to process.
At the moment, we simply don't have the capacity to launch broad ex officio investigations. Instead, as we investigate the applications already before us, we should identify any cases where the need for an ex officio investigation becomes particularly clear.
Some people have called for a comprehensive investigation of every overseas adoption involving possible human rights violations, but with our current staffing that is simply impossible.
Over roughly four years, the second commission handled about 20,000 cases.
By comparison, official statistics indicate approximately 168,000 overseas adoptions, while unofficial estimates put the number at around 250,000.
Given those numbers—and considering the practical difficulties of investigating overseas adoption cases scattered all over the world—a comprehensive investigation by the third commission is impossible."
— During the second commission, only 56 of the 98 overseas adoption cases brought before the full commission were approved for truth-finding, while 42 were deferred. As a subcommittee member, you supported truth-finding in all 98 cases, but when the full commission decided to recognize only 56, you did not object.
Jang:
"You have to understand that issue in context.
The overseas adoption cases were the first of their kind to accumulate in significant numbers, and there was no agreed standard for deciding, among the total 367 cases, which should be recognized and which should be deferred.
Commissioners continued debating the issue both in the subcommittee and in the full commission.
When the 56 cases were recognized in March last year, it wasn't because every relevant fact had been clearly established. Rather, those cases at least had some supporting evidence.
If these had been domestic cases, trying to establish the truth without conducting even a single on-site investigation—as happened with overseas adoption—would have been unthinkable.
Still, we eventually reached a difficult compromise that if the documentary evidence was relatively clear, we would recognize the case.
Had we made the wrong decision at that time, all of the cases would simply have been deferred as a group and their investigations suspended.
My point is that this was not a simple issue.
That's why I believe much more study of overseas adoption is needed."
— After only 56 cases were recognized, critics argued that the commission had defined the problems with overseas adoption too narrowly, focusing only on document falsification. Many also argue that overseas adoption should fundamentally be understood as a form of human trafficking.
Jang:
"We shouldn't take such an extreme position.
If we do, then we'd have to ask whether overseas adoption in other countries is also wrong, or whether international adoption should be banned altogether. I don't think that's the answer.
It's true that the government has set a goal of gradually ending overseas adoption by 2029, reducing the number to zero by then. But even that policy is controversial.
At the time when overseas adoption was most active, many mixed-race children and orphans would have faced starvation if they had simply been left where they were.
Where I think things went wrong is that the procedures were far too lax. In many cases, the birth parents' intentions were never properly confirmed. After children were sent overseas, proper procedures to verify whether their adoptive families were suitable were often not followed.
I do not believe that overseas adoption itself was the problem.
During the third commission, we'll need to investigate both the suspended cases and the newly filed applications.
Initially, reviewing the submitted documents will be the priority, but we're also considering tracing various official records and conducting Zoom interviews with witnesses living overseas.
Going forward, we'll need substantial cooperation from relevant civic organizations and experts—and, above all, access to records held by the adoption agencies themselves."
+
Photo caption:
In his office at Korea University's Law School during the summer of 2023. Commissioner Jang retired in August of last year and now serves as professor emeritus. (Courtesy of Jang Young-soo)
— Is there anything else you'd like to say regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
Jang:
"First, I'd like to say something to the investigators.
Compared to the commission's workload, the number of investigators is far too small, and staffing is still in the process of being expanded, so I know they face many difficulties.
On top of that, the office is unsettled because of the building renovation and the planned relocation.
Even so, I hope we can all work together with the understanding that we're doing meaningful work for people who have suffered much more than we have. Let's do our very best together.
If there's anything I can do to help, I'll gladly do it.
To the public, I ask for your interest and support.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not an institution with great power or influence. But it performs meaningful and important work by correcting Korea's history and helping to relieve the pain caused by distorted historical narratives."
— I'd like to ask about something else. At the beginning of 2024, there were reports that you might become Minister of Justice. Instead, Park Sung-jae was appointed. Last month, he was sentenced in the first trial to 25 years in prison for participating in the insurrection as a principal offender and was immediately taken into custody.
Jang:
"Some people have told me, 'It's a very good thing you didn't become minister back then.' (laughs)
Right after the declaration of emergency martial law, I wrote in a newspaper that 'I cannot understand an emergency martial law declaration that failed to satisfy the constitutional requirements.'
I made it clear that the declaration was unconstitutional and illegal.
If I had been Minister of Justice at the time, I would have opposed it.
I'm not someone who pushes myself to the front, but neither am I someone who simply goes along with what others say.
Even during the second Truth Commission, I didn't simply follow whatever the commissioners recommended by the People Power Party wanted."
Photo caption:
Shortly after emergency martial law was declared on December 3, 2024, troops entered the National Assembly building in Yeouido, Seoul, during the early hours of December 4. (Yonhap)
— During your service on the second commission, the emergency martial law declaration became a major national event. After being nominated as a standing commissioner for the third commission, you told The Hankyoreh that "it has not yet been established whether the martial law declaration constituted an insurrection," which became controversial.
Jang:
"Whether the martial law declaration was unconstitutional and illegal is one issue. Whether it constitutes insurrection is a separate issue.
The legal determination of insurrection is made by the courts.
If it is established that former President Yoon Suk Yeol ordered the arrest of the Speaker of the National Assembly, the leaders of the ruling and opposition parties, or members of the National Assembly, then it could be considered insurrection.
But if that is not established, it's difficult to call it insurrection.
It's ultimately a question of fact."
— Regardless of whether Yoon personally issued such an order, the military was deployed and forcibly entered the National Assembly by breaking windows, wasn't it?
Jang:
"That is exactly where the accounts differ.
Former President Yoon says it was done 'to protect the National Assembly.'
It has to be established that the purpose was instead to disable the National Assembly.
What does it mean to disable the National Assembly? It means preventing it from functioning.
If the Speaker, party leaders, and lawmakers were arrested, then the Assembly would indeed be disabled...."
Photo caption:
A military helicopter hovers over the National Assembly on the night of December 3, 2024. (Yonhap)
— Isn't it more accurate to say the Assembly wasn't disabled not because they chose not to, but because they failed? National Assembly staff resisted, and the soldiers were unable to arrest lawmakers.
Jang:
"To speak of an attempted crime, intent has to be established.
In the end, no member of the National Assembly was actually taken away.
Still, if it is true that such an order was given, then it would constitute insurrection.
If that is not true, then I think it's difficult to characterize it as insurrection."
— More than 1,000 troops, including soldiers from the Special Warfare Command, stormed the National Assembly. The entire scene was broadcast live. Isn't that itself an act of disrupting the constitutional order?
Jang:
"As I've continued to say, the issue is 'Why did they enter?' and 'Were they trying to drag lawmakers out or not?'
That has to be established.
President Lee Jae-myung also ran for president and was elected while still standing trial, under the principle of the presumption of innocence.
So why should we say that insurrection has already been established in the emergency martial law case before there has been a final criminal judgment?
I think that's a double standard."
— Can you really compare two fundamentally different situations: one involving military force used against the National Assembly, and the other an individual's criminal trial?
Jang:
"They're both criminal proceedings before the courts.
Are you saying that the presumption of innocence doesn't apply when the military is involved? That's not correct.
The seriousness of a case doesn't change the legal principle.
For example, you can't apply one standard to ordinary citizens and a different standard to cases involving the president.
That wouldn't be equality before the law.
And I'm not saying 'it's definitely not insurrection.'
I'm saying we have to determine the facts through evidence.
We need the evidence that the law requires."
Photo caption:
Standing Commissioner Jang Young-soo is interviewed by The Hankyoreh on July 7 in his office at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (Photo by Kim Hye-yoon)
— Several witnesses—including Special Warfare Commander Kwak Jong-geun and First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service Hong Jang-won—have testified that "the president ordered lawmakers to be dragged out of the National Assembly."
Jang:
"The testimony conflicts.
Former President Yoon denies giving such an order.
As you yourself said earlier, the accounts are contradictory.
When we don't know which version is correct, we have to resolve the doubt in favor of the defendant.
We first need to determine what the facts actually are."
(Reporter's note: On February 19, the Criminal Division 25 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Ji Gwi-yeon) found that former President Yoon Suk Yeol's conduct, for which he had been indicted as the leader of an insurrection, satisfied the core elements of the crime of insurrection—namely, the purpose of disrupting the constitutional order and the use of violence—and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The case is currently on appeal. Separately, the Supreme Court is scheduled to issue its ruling on July 9 in Yoon's case involving obstruction of his arrest by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials. In that case, he received five years' imprisonment at trial and seven years on appeal.)
— Finally, what did you think about the Paichai High School baseball team's "May 18 mockery cheer"? The May 18 Gwangju Uprising is not within the Truth Commission's jurisdiction, but it is an important historical event.
Jang:
"To begin with, I don't think those young students were acting with any particular political intent.
Saying something like 'Let's go to Starbucks' in that context could certainly be considered inappropriate.
But I don't think it warranted the severe punishment of a six-month suspension from competition.
I think the penalty may have been excessive.
The first step should have been to establish the facts, including what their actual intent was."
Profile: Standing Commissioner Jang Young-soo
Term: June 24, 2026 – June 23, 2028 (eligible for reappointment)
Born in Chungju in 1960
Commissioner, Second Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2021–2025)
Chair, National Police Agency Human Rights Committee (2022)
Member of the Preparatory Committee for the Innovation Emergency Committee of the Liberty Korea Party (now the People Power Party) (2018)
Research Fellow, Constitutional Court of Korea (2009)
Professor, Korea University Law School (2009–2025)
Professor, Korea University College of Law (1994–2009)
Vice President, Korean Constitutional Law Association (2000)
Doctorate in Constitutional Law, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany (1990)
LL.B., Korea University (1982)
By Ko Kyung-tae
Photo caption:
Standing Commissioner Jang Young-soo is interviewed by The Hankyoreh in his office at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on July 7. (Photo by Kim Hye-yoon)