Protesters at Seoul Western District Court defend their act as justifiable

“We were not trespassing, but entering the building”, “Exercising the people’s right to resist illegality,” and “Prosecution is writing fiction” were claims made by some of the protesters charged with staging a riot at the Seoul Western District Court at their first trial on Mar 10. Generally, defendants tend to make statements that are favorable to them, but it is unreasonable how they justify the unprecedented and grave crime of intruding the court, the bastion of the rule of law.

The Western District Court incident occurred on January 19 when protesters who were protesting the issuance of an arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol broke into the court building and caused a disturbance. Some of the defendants on that day claimed that the back door of the court had been open. “Thus, we did not break in but entered the premises,” they claimed. Protesters climbing over the court fence and breaking the outer wall and windows was live streamed on YouTube, who would believe their claim that it was not a break-in? Regarding the blocking of the Public Prosecutor's Office vehicle, they claimed that “it had not been obstruction of official duty, since the Public Prosecutor's Office arrest of the president was illegal." Not only is this a groundless and far-fetched claim, but there is no ruling by the court that the Public Prosecutor's Office's arrest was illegal.

At that time, the protesters used violence against the police and reporters while storming the court building and even ransacked the office of the judge who issued the warrant. The defendants claim that they “exercised the people’s right to resist under the Constitution,” but the people’s right to resist is a last resort when there is no other way to resist unjust public power. Given many judicial procedures to raise objections to the arrest of President Yoon, how can the violence that was used instead of the judicial procedures be justified as an exercise of the right to resist?

The reason for justifying themselves on groundless claims instead of reflecting on their actions is probably because they believe they have someone behind their back. “I pay tribute to the Street Crusaders,” after the violence at the Western District Court,” a former member of the ruling party’s supreme council said. A former defense minister commented that he hoped the patriotic warriors would be released soon and sent a bail bond to the rioters at the Western District Court. They incited violence by claiming the people’s right to resist and praised the violent protesters who trampled the rule of law and democracy as “patriotic citizens.” They are the reason why we are in a pitiful state where we are concerned about the risk of a second incident happening before the Constitutional Court’s impeachment decision.