Chapter 1.
Freedom of the Deviants 15
Chapter 2.
The Sorrow of the Fake Murder Trio: The Samrye Nara Supermarket Robbery and Murder Case 35
Chapter 3.
Why They Released a Murderer: Iksan Yakchon Intersection Taxi Driver Murder Case 123
Chapter 4.
I'm Not a Murderer: The Case of Kim Shin-hye, a Life-Longing Prisoner in Wando, Part 193
Chapter 5.
Delayed Justice 301

Epilogue 331

1.
No one believed me

There are people who engage in 'self-destructive behavior' by admitting to sins they did not commit.
It is not easy to understand and judge this kind of behavior with a rational standard.
“Even if he made a false confession because he couldn’t withstand the police assault, why didn’t he know that it was a huge mistake?” “If he was not the culprit and it was unfair, why didn’t he appeal?” “There is a three-trial system and a public defender system, so why did he give up halfway through?” “If he was involved in a murder case and not another crime, shouldn’t he have insisted on his innocence until the end?” These are the walls that the parties in retrial cases have faced countless times during prosecutorial investigations and in court, and they are also the first questions that come to mind for those who have never been in a similar situation.

The three main characters in the Samrye Nara Supermarket robbery and murder case covered in “Delayed Justice,” Choi Seong-pil (pseudonym) in the Iksan Yakchon Intersection taxi driver murder case, and Kim Shin-hye, who is serving a life sentence for the murder of her father, all received no assistance from guardians or lawyers.
The police suspected the suspects without securing any direct evidence or clues that could identify the culprit, and grew the suspicion into certainty without any basis.
They fell into the 'trap of certainty' and conducted an investigation that violated the law and principles.
The prosecution had no control whatsoever over the police's illegal investigation.
They were not proactive in uncovering the truth of the case, such as releasing suspects who appeared to be the real culprits without properly investigating them.
The public defender induced or coerced a false confession.
And the court found him guilty without properly verifying the case records.
Before asking the victims, "Why did you make false confessions?", it is more important to first raise the question of the investigative and judicial authorities, "How did these false confessions come about?"
Investigations must be conducted according to due process and trials must be conducted with caution and humility not only to protect human rights, but also because only then can we approach the substantive truth.

2.
A second (or first) chance given to those who have been wronged

A retrial is an emergency relief measure to reexamine the validity of a final judgment upon the request of the parties and other claimants when there is a serious error in the recognition of facts.
_Doosan Encyclopedia

Attorney Park Jun-young is well known as a 'retrial specialist attorney.'
The retrial cases he handled (including the 'Suwon homeless girl assault and death case' that occurred in 2007) led to good results.
All those falsely accused in the Samrye and Iksan incidents were found not guilty after retrial.
However, there is no such thing as a 'good outcome' in any retrial case.
The time it took for the truth to come to light was equally long.
The 'Samrye Trio', who were 18 to 20 years old at the time of the incident, served sentences ranging from 3 years and 6 months to 5 years and 6 months, and were cleared of their charges after 17 years.
Choi Seong-pil, who was 15 years old at the time of the Iksan incident, received the maximum sentence possible for a minor (15 years) in the first trial, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison only after making a false confession in the second trial.
He served over 9 years in prison and was cleared of his charges 16 years later.
Kim Shin-hye became the first life sentence prisoner to receive a retrial.
Their time can never be compensated for in any way.
Justice delayed is justice denied.

Retrials of ordinary criminal cases, other than current affairs or political cases that attract a lot of attention, are difficult to proceed with.
This is because the judiciary is reluctant to retrial for the sake of “legal stability,” and public opinion is generally indifferent to human rights violations committed by ordinary “common people.”
The author points out that in Korean society, regardless of progressive or conservative ideology, the left or right, the lives of people with intellectual disabilities, the less educated, and the poor are not given due weight when it comes to specific instances of human rights violations.
While we may be concerned about the human rights violations and unfair treatment they endure, we may also think, "They have nothing, so they deserve to be treated that way."
This book sharply exposes the wrongdoings of investigative agencies, courts, and others, while also making us soberly ask ourselves whether perhaps we have all discriminated against the socially disadvantaged.

3.
The courage to ask for forgiveness

The impact of a wrongful conviction doesn't stop at those who are wrongly accused.
The bereaved families of murder and fatality victims express not only the pain of losing their loved ones, but also the guilt of innocent people being punished without reason.
Even the real criminals who did not pay the price suffer because they do not have the opportunity to reflect on their mistakes.
When I turned myself in in 2000, I spent countless nights filled with guilt, including vivid images of my grandmother dead every night.
I feel very sorry for the deceased grandmother and her bereaved family.
The real culprit in the Samrye case, Mr. Lee, who stated, “I was wrong,” later testified about his crime in the retrial court to shake off such suffering.
He met with the Samrye Trio, the victims, and their bereaved families in person and apologized.
He also visited the victims' graves and repented.
The victims who met the real culprit were grateful for his courage and forgave him.
However, despite the fact that numerous public authorities were involved in the process of creating a fake murderer and releasing the real culprit who confessed, it is very rare for any of them to directly admit to their wrongdoing.
The situation is not much different in other retrial cases.
This book persistently demands accountability from those who should be held accountable.
Because I believe that courageous reflection and apology are the beginning of change.

4.
In-depth retrial reportage from "Outside the Four Great Gates"

Usually, criminal retrials proceed indefinitely amidst public indifference.
Because a request for a retrial is only possible if evidence is collected that can overturn a case already decided by the judiciary, the amount of work that a defense attorney must put in is greater than in a regular case.
Moreover, since the target audience is mainly economically and socially disadvantaged, it is difficult to expect legal fees.
This book was planned based on the judgment that, in order to gain momentum for individual retrial cases, it was necessary to raise issues more fundamentally regarding the problems with our society's retrial procedures and practices.
By reading the police and prosecutorial investigation records, trial records, and retrial records of the retrial cases and conducting interviews with relevant parties, we pieced together a complex puzzle and compiled the process into an engaging report.
Furthermore, thanks to its in-depth exploration of the current state and meaning of "retrial" in our society, this book has become a documentary that can serve as an example in this field.
The author's pledge to "write articles that will live by meeting people you wouldn't otherwise meet within the confines of Seoul's Sadamun Gate and hearing stories that are difficult to hear" bore small fruit in the form of "Delayed Justice."

If it is determined that the defendant's confession was not made voluntarily due to torture, assault, intimidation, unreasonable prolongation of detention, or deception or other methods, or if the defendant's confession is the only evidence against him in a formal trial, it cannot be used as evidence of guilt or punished for this reason.
_Article 12, Paragraph 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

If there is reason to suspect that the defendant's confession was not made voluntarily through torture, assault, intimidation, unreasonable prolongation of physical restraint, or deception or other means, it cannot be used as evidence of guilt.
Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A retrial may be requested for the benefit of the person sentenced to a final guilty verdict if any of the following reasons apply:
1.
When it is proven by a final judgment that the documents or evidence provided in the original judgment are forged or altered
2.
When the testimony, appraisal, interpretation or translation provided as evidence in the original judgment is proven to be false by a final judgment.
3.
In case of a guilty verdict due to a false accusation, when the guilt of the false accusation is proven by a final judgment
4.
When the original judgment is changed by a final judgment
5.
When new clear evidence is discovered that leads to a not guilty verdict or acquittal for a person who has been convicted, or to an exemption from punishment or a lesser crime than the original verdict for a person who has been sentenced.
6.
When a decision or ruling of invalidity of a right is final and conclusive in a case where a person has been found guilty of infringing a copyright, patent, utility model, design or trademark right.
7.
When it is proven by a final judgment that a judge who was involved in the original judgment, the previous judgment, or the investigation that formed the basis of the judgment, or a prosecutor or judicial police officer who was involved in the filing of a public prosecution or the investigation that formed the basis of the public prosecution, committed a crime related to his/her duties; provided, however, that in the case where a public prosecution was filed against a judge, prosecutor, or judicial police officer before the pronouncement of the original judgment, this shall apply only when the court that made the original judgment was unaware of the reason.
Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Reasons for Retrial)