Choe Neung-jin (崔能鎭, 1899 – 11 February 1951) was a Korean independence activist of South Korea.
A Young Korean Academy-affiliated Korean independence activist during Japanese rule of Korea, and chief of the Investigation Bureau of the Police Affairs Department during the US military government period.
Life
Before liberation
He was born in 1899 in Gangseo County, South Pyongan Province.
On 9 February 1928, at the 14th New York Convention of the Young Korean Academy, he gave a lecture titled "Athletic Meeting."1
After returning to Korea in 1929, Choe trained students at Soongsil College in Pyongyang.2
In 1932, he founded the Pyongyang Football Club and helped regularize the Gyeongpyeong football matches, promoting national spirit.2
In 1937, he was arrested in the Suyang Dongwuhoe incident and sentenced to two years in prison.3
Immediately after liberation
Immediately after the 8·15 Liberation in 1945, he served as head of the security department of the South Pyongan branch of the Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence.
Around September 1945, after fleeing south to escape Soviet repression, he was appointed chief of the Investigation Bureau of the Police Affairs Department by the US Army Military Government.
Dismissal as chief of the Investigation Bureau (1946)
On 2 December 1946, Cho Byeong-ok, director of the Police Affairs Department, dismissed Choe, the chief of the Investigation Bureau, demanding his resignation on the grounds that he was harmful to maintaining the current state of the National Police, to boosting police morale, and to securing the chain of command. In response, on 5 December 1946, Choe sent Cho Byeong-ok an open reply letter, the gist of which is as follows, and made it public at the same time: "I cannot, in good conscience, and the three million people will not allow, that I hand over the National Police to you, who have failed to achieve the original aim for the National Police and devote yourself solely to corrupt officials and profiteering. Moreover, the three conditions you have cited are vague assertions without sufficient evidence, which I consider a disgrace that strips a police officer of his qualifications. If I have obstructed police cooperation, the only meaning would be that I did not accompany you, who daily associate with profiteers and frequent luxury restaurants, and that I did not agree to employ, in high official posts, a man with three convictions for fraud who had been catching national movement activists, and to reject pure independence activists as inexperienced.
"2) If I have been harmful to boosting police morale, then your calling on police officers, whether old or new, to retire if they focus on corruption, profiteering, and abuse of authority for their own personal happiness and gain rather than the welfare of the whole nation during the building of the nation, would be a case of having damaged police morale. It is difficult to comprehend how you, who bear no responsibility for the Yeongnam riot incident that tarnished the founding of the nation, can be the one who promotes police morale.
"3) Regarding the chain of command, as the person responsible for criminal investigations, I was obliged to handle lawfully any criminal acts, whether by high officials under military government or by ordinary citizens. However, the cases involved senior police officers who committed human rights violations, looting of goods, and unlawful detention; the fact that you let go of the complaints about the cases in which senior police officials, complying with the demands of one individual, carried out forced eviction of a house and unlawful beatings, in order to serve a person in charge of your luxury restaurant entertainment expenses after a Japanese patriot was introduced as a military governor and over 12 to 13 million won was withdrawn from the military government; and the complaint about unlawful detention and human rights abuses against the head of the Public Security Bureau, which you rendered meaningless. I admit that I obeyed unconditionally your orders in these matters, but the only instance in which I disobeyed your order was when I refused your request to campaign for the release of Kim Ju-jo. Taking all these facts together, you should immediately resign from your current post, apologize before the 20 million people, and, as penance, donate to the displaced compatriots the property you have unrighteously acquired since 15 August, and offer your mistress to single men, and then return to being Cho Byeong-ok, the patriot of the pre-liberation era."4
On 6 December 1946, Cho Byeong-ok gave the following explanation regarding Choe's open letter pointing out his misconduct: "I do not regard this as an open letter. Still, I have considerable concern about the publication of such a document, and in any case I take it as a result of my lack of virtue. Director Choe continued to show up at work even after being dismissed, so at 4 p.m. I had him removed. Regarding this letter issue, a committee of three US military personnel is now investigating at my request, and I will announce the details later. Among the published documents, there is mention of a campaign for the release of Kim Ju-jo, but I made no such request to Director Choe; I only submitted a bail opinion through Colonel Champeny, who was then director of the Police Bureau, and I received nothing in material terms. This matter has already been settled by the inquiry of Major Weems. Also, I am not aware that I appointed a man with three convictions to a high official post. And I am not aware of the fact that I received the large sum of 12 to 13 million won."5
On 7 December 1946, Chang Taek-sang, Commissioner of the Seoul Metropolitan Police, defended Cho Byeong-ok and criticized Choe: "Director Cho Byeong-ok is a police officer with a conscience. In my ten months of experience, he has never once made partisan remarks, in private or in public. He has never said anything like suppressing the left and protecting the right, or suppressing the right and protecting the left. As the head of the Seoul police, who reflects the policy of the Police Affairs Department, I say this without hesitation before heaven and earth: he has never done so. On the other hand, Choe Neung-jin, from beginning to end, carried out partisan police administration in both public and private matters. His remarks disparaging us as 'you are unpatriotic,' and his threats and coercion that he would not hesitate to annihilate, suppress, detain, and arrest leftists, were not made once or twice."6
On 13 December 1946, Choe Neung-jin, former chief of the Investigation Bureau of the Police Affairs Department, again issued a statement on this matter, the gist of which is as follows: "According to Chang Taek-sang's statement, my statement was made out of personal feelings to defame Cho Byeong-ok, and he pointed out that I was a police officer who oppressed the leftist camp. But I had no personal feelings whatsoever, and it is a plain fact that Messrs. Cho Byeong-ok and Chang Taek-sang have conducted police administration under the control of the Hanmindang. Chang's statement this time is nothing more than a base wink at the leftist camp. I admit only that during my tenure I severely suppressed the extreme left and extreme right, who promoted national division and fratricidal strife. Moreover, I demand the total removal of Cho and all the old and new corrupt police officers who monopolized nightly revelry at luxury restaurants, displayed selfish tendencies, drove promising young police officers to despair and retirement, and fostered the attitudes of corrupt police officers devoted to power, pleasure, and profiteering, to the detriment of the people. Regarding the removal of former officials of the Japanese colonial period that Chang pointed out, of course many former officials were patriots, but a handful of Japanese lackeys who prayed for the prosperity of the Japanese imperial house cannot become patriots and leaders of the people in the building of the nation overnight. Therefore I aimed to remove them from the posts of police chief, station chief, and senior officers, and to retain former professional police technicians only in the lower ranks, hoping for the consolidation of a democratic police force; yet Cho Byeong-ok insisted on opposing my views to the very end. Is today's police not precisely the pro-Japanese police that the Japanese had eagerly hoped for? Can a former Japanese senior investigator in a key post as current chief of the Investigation Division lead and suppress independence activists? Including our patriot Kim Seong-suk, who was arrested in Gimje, Jeonbuk this summer, how many patriots were arrested and imprisoned by them at Seodaemun Prison? I believe the martyred patriots would once again be unable to contain their grief underground."7
Furthermore, Choe elaborated on item 3 of his previous statement and on the content of his interview with Chang at the Aeseowon restaurant: "First, the employment of a person with previous convictions: after appointing Lee Hae-jin, a man with three convictions for fraud, as a South Jeolla inspector, he was stationed entirely in Seoul.
"Second, (a) the eviction case: the fact that police officers, through the entertainment of a Mr. Lee, unlawfully took part in the eviction of a house at Eumbyeokjeong in Seongbuk-dong is well known even to the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Kim Yong-mu. (b) The large withdrawal case: Lee Jong-hoe (Toyomura Yu), a lackey and leader of pro-Japanese forces and a former aide of Japanese Army Chief of Staff Ihara, was caused to take out a loan of 13 million won for operating funds for eleven factories.
"Third, (a) the complaint against the head of the Public Security Division Han: Han, while serving in North Jeolla, was accused of unlawfully detaining the provisional government official Kim Hyeong-seop for one month on the request of a local figure, a violation of human rights; the complaint was officially filed, but Han had it dismissed and was promoted. (b) The Kim Ju-jo case: according to a statement by a Mr. Hong Taek-hui, an inspector in the Seoul Metropolitan Police, passed on by a suspect who had been with Kim and was released afterward at Kim's request, Cho received 400,000 won from Kim, but the Committee for Inquiry dismissed this without even investigating Hong or the persons who had reported his release.
"Fourth, the Aeseowon meeting: as stated above, I met Chang to aim at strengthening the police camp again, and we agreed first to dismiss in Seoul former officials of the Governor-General's security section, Choe Un-jin, now chief of the Investigation Division, and Lee Gu-beom, former senior investigator of the Busan police, now station chief of Motomachi station, among others. But Chang betrayed this and carried out a counter-propaganda campaign against me among all former officials."7
On 24 December 1946, Choe Neung-jin, former chief of the Investigation Bureau of the Police Affairs Department, was booked without detention on suspicion of defamation.8
Cancellation of candidate registration for the constituent election and mass resignation of Seoul electoral committees (1948)
On 20 April 1948, the news reported: "The registration deadline for the election was to be 16 April, but by the deadline only Syngman Rhee alone had registered in Dongdaemun Gap district. Just before the deadline, Choe Neung-jin was said to have had his recommendation forms seized by young men supporting so-called Dr. Syngman Rhee, and he tried to register with insufficient recommendation forms. However, the Dongdaemun district electoral committee refused to accept Choe's registration, in the sense of observing the sacred election law. Choe, under the condition of having 'obstructed the free atmosphere,' negotiated with the authorities, and the Seoul City electoral committee postponed his registration to 7 p.m. on 21 April. Choe completed his registration procedures on the afternoon of 20 April, and criticism is said to be widespread about this.
"That is, the claim that Choe Neung-jin obstructed the free atmosphere by having his recommendation forms seized by young men supporting Dr. Syngman Rhee has no basis or evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, it is said that it is no exaggeration to say that the Seoul City electoral committee's measure of postponing Choe's registration by 116 hours after the deadline, for the sake of one individual, under strict and sacred election law, resulted in exploiting the free atmosphere. In any case, there is considerable criticism that, because of one individual seeking to exploit the free atmosphere, the election law enacted with the aim of establishing an independent government was violated.
"All members of the Dongdaemun Gap district electoral committee, due to a disagreement with the higher electoral committee over the question of Choe Neung-jin's candidate registration, resigned en masse on 20 April. However, the Seoul City electoral committee appointed successor members the same day so that the electoral work would not be hindered in any way."9
On 30 April 1948, the news reported: "Now, revealing the full account of the registration procedure through which Mr. Choe Neung-jin went to become a candidate: first, on 13 April, he came to the polling station office of the Changsin-dong Seobu neighborhood office in the city and asked for a registration certificate on the recommendation form. However, the staff member who held the registration documents and official seal happened to be out, so he was asked to come back the next day. Mr. Choe then demanded a document certifying the reason from the head of the neighborhood office, and on 15 April, he returned, accompanied by a US serviceman, and demanded a registration certificate again. Then, around 6:50 p.m. on 16 April, Mr. Choe came to the Dongdaemun Gap district electoral committee accompanied by an American who claimed to be an aide to the military governor. Using as a pretext that the registration documents had been seized, he presented 93 recommendation forms and, having himself written a pledge that they would be void unless he submitted the 118 lost recommendation forms by noon on 18 April, he insisted that they be accepted, saying it was an order from higher up. The chairman of the electoral committee provisionally received them in his individual capacity, then convened the committee that night and deliberated, but decided not to accept them as illegal.
"However, because there was an instruction from the higher committee on 17 April, they waited until noon on the promised 18 April, but his representative appeared and notified them that he could not submit the promised documents. They therefore reported this to the city committee as it was and resolved not to accept them again. On 18 April, the Seoul City committee instructed the Dongdaemun Gap electoral committee to accept candidate registration documents until 7 p.m. on 21 April, and so all the electoral committee members resigned en masse. Afterward, on 19 and 20 April, Mr. Choe, accompanied by two policemen, visited voters' homes door to door, obtained recommendation forms and registration certificates, and had the secretary of the Dong district electoral committee accept the registration documents. From all this, it can largely be seen that the candidate registration was not legal. Moreover, when the Journalists' Association asked Commissioner Chang Taek-sang of the Seoul Metropolitan Police on 26 April about the fact that police officers had been sent along to obtain Choe's recommendation forms and registration certificates, it was confirmed that they had been dispatched at the request of the Seoul mayor, and it became clear that William F. Dean, the military governor, had instructed the mayor to do so."10
On 8 May 1948, the National Assembly electoral committee cancelled Choe Neung-jin's candidate registration.11
Campaign to install Seo Jae-pil (1948)
On 18 June 1948, the news reported: "The question of installing Dr. Seo Jae-pil, which had been quietly advancing in some political circles, has recently taken concrete shape in the form of an expanded preparatory meeting of the Independence Club centered on figures affiliated with the Young Korean Academy. That is, Choe Neung-jin, An Dong-won, Baek Rin-je, No Jin-seol, Yi Yong-seol, Kim Bong-jun, Yeo Haeng-yeol, and Jeong In-gwa, who are identified as leaders of the Young Korean Academy, held a first meeting at an unnamed location in the city on the 11th, and on the 18th held a second meeting on the third floor of the Myeongsin Department Store on Namdaemun-ro in the city, where they decided on a petition addressed to Dr. Seo Jae-pil in the name of the founding promoters of the expanded Independence Club preparatory committee, and it is said they will present it to Dr. Seo Jae-pil within two or three days. However, there is a view that the campaign to install Dr. Seo Jae-pil is a kind of maneuver to involve Dr. Seo Jae-pil in the government to be established, and Dr. Seo Jae-pil's future attitude is attracting attention."12
Petition against the election of Syngman Rhee (1948)
On 15 September 1948, the National Assembly electoral review committee dismissed Choe Neung-jin's petition to annul the election of Syngman Rhee. The reasons were as follows: "Article 51 of the Election Law can be interpreted as permitting a kind of election lawsuit in which one claims that the decision on the winner was wrong and requests its correction; however, in light of the petitioner's claims and the facts that can be inferred from the record, it is a matter of worldwide public knowledge that Mr. Syngman Rhee, who was determined to be the winner in the Dongdaemun Gap constituency of Seoul on 10 May 1948, was elected President of South Korea by the National Assembly on 20 July of the same year and has already completed the procedure for assuming office. Therefore, under Article 53, paragraph 3 of the Constitution and Article 71, paragraph 1 of the National Assembly Act, he automatically ceased to be a member of the National Assembly, and it is clear that the said constituency is in a state of vacancy. Thus, in this Election Law, which does not provide for by-elections or any supplementary procedure for vacancies other than a re-election, it cannot be regarded as a legitimate claim in a petition to discuss the validity of a constituency that is already vacant based on the facts at the time of the election decision. Accordingly, this case cannot but be deemed improper without reviewing the merits of the grounds for the claim. Therefore, this petition is to be dismissed, and the ruling is issued as stated in the order."13
Execution by shooting for treason
On 20 January 1951, the Central High Court-Martial of the Army sentenced Choe Neung-jin to death (by firing squad), holding that his activities fell under Article 32 (treason) of the National Defense Security Act.14
On 24 January 1951, a war correspondent of the Minju Shinbo reported on the Choe Neung-jin case, stating: "Choe Neung-jin (54) carried out various acts of collaboration after the 25 June incident, drawing the attention of the public, and on the afternoon of the 23rd at about 3 p.m. (omitted) finally pronounced a sentence of death by shooting..."15
On 11 February 1951, he was executed in Gachang-myeon, Dalseong County, North Gyeongsang Province. At that time, it is said, the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) that investigated Choe was led by Kim Chang-ryong, a former corporal of the military police of the Japanese Kwantung Army.
In 1993, the bereaved family of Choe Neung-jin, an independence activist, petitioned the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs to recognize their father as an independence activist, but the Ministry replied that he could not be commemorated because he had been executed for treason and other offenses.
According to a report of 26 August 2013, the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs postponed the commendation, saying that because the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not a constitutional institution, a court ruling was required. Eventually, in 2011 a retrial request was filed with the Seoul Central District Court. However, the court transferred the case to the Daejeon High Court Martial, saying that the retrial should be conducted by the court that first issued the judgment. It is currently under review which court, the general courts or the military courts, should handle the retrial.2
Acquittal in retrial for violation of the National Defense Security Act
On 15 August 1945, immediately after liberation, Choe Neung-jin, who was active as head of the security department of the South Pyongan Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence (chairman Cho Man-sik), clashed with the Communist Party (North Korean Workers' Party) and, around September of the same year, fled south. He then served as principal of the Police Technical School and chief of the Investigation Bureau under the US Army Military Government, and while advocating the purge of pro-Japanese police, he was dismissed around December 1946 by Police Affairs Director Cho ○○.14
Afterward, on 10 May 1948, in the election for the constituent assembly, Choe ran in the same constituency as Syngman Rhee, under the banner of preventing Rhee's election, who was employing pro-Japanese police officers. However, his candidate registration was cancelled. Around October 1948, he was implicated in the so-called "Revolutionary Volunteer Army Incident," and on appeal was sentenced to five years in prison, serving his term at Seodaemun Prison. While his case was pending before the Supreme Court, the Korean War broke out on 25 June 1950, and he was released from prison by North Korean forces. After Seoul was recovered on 28 September 1950, Choe surrendered around October 1950.14
Regarding conduct under martial law, the court-martial established under the Martial Law Act classified Choe, who was then a convicted prisoner, as a "re-offender" by applying Article 1 of the National Defense Security Act. Choe had, around July 1950, in Seoul under North Korean occupation, gathered figures from the nationalist camp and pursued a "Immediate Armistice, Peace Appeal Assembly," but failed to hold it due to Kim Il Sung's opposition. The court-martial (prosecutors Captain Lee Yong-seok and Lieutenant Heo Su) indicted him on the grounds that these activities and others constituted violations of the National Defense Security Act.14
The prosecutors alleged that between about 5 and 10 July 1950, Choe had prisoners including Hwang Shin-deok, Park Man-gyeong, and Kim Seung-jae submit to the Seoul City People's Committee written confessions to the effect that they pledged to cooperate actively with the People's Army, thereby actively assisting the enemy's policy of recruiting persons;14
that around July 1950 he incited more than ten people, including National Assembly member Won Se-hun, to "conform with the puppet army for the sake of the people," thereby prompting National Assembly members to collaborate with the enemy;14
that from early July 1950 to 15 July 1950, he proposed to Kim Il Sung a "Peace Appeal Assembly," and with Kim Il Sung's instructions and the cooperation of the Seoul City People's Committee, held that assembly bringing together more than 80 social figures, with the aim of requesting the UN to immediately armistice and requesting the establishment in the Republic of Korea of a coalition government encompassing the North Korean side and the middle faction that flattered it, thereby rendering the armed actions of UN forces meaningless and seeking to overthrow the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea;14
that between 30 June 1950 and 25 September 1950, he took over the Seongnam Hotel from Jang Bong-ok and provided it to the Seoul City People's Committee, making it a hub for conspiracies by North Korean leaders, and incited Jang Bong-sun and several others to visit that place and make contact with enemy leaders, thereby giving them an opportunity to collaborate with the enemy;14
and that around 20 August 1950, at his home, he provided 10,000 won to the so-called Democratic Youth League.14
(Each violation of the National Defense Security Act)14
On 20 January 1951, the Central High Court-Martial of the Army (presiding judge Lieutenant Colonel Hwang Cheol-sin, judge advocate Captain Jin Chang-gyun, judge Major Song Ui-geun15) sentenced Choe Neung-jin to death (by firing squad) for violation of the National Defense Security Act (Article 32, treason), and the sentence was carried out on 11 February 1951.14
On 9 January 1973, Choe's third son, Choe ○○, submitted to the Army Judge Advocate General's Office, General Division, a retrial petition for Choe Neung-jin.14
On 13 January 2006, Choe's son Choe Man-rip claimed that his father had never committed any treasonous act at that time, and that the court-martial judgment was political retaliation against Choe Neung-jin, who had opposed Syngman Rhee since liberation, including by running in Rhee's constituency in the constituent assembly election. He petitioned the Presidential Truth Commission on Suspicious Deaths... (Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Past Affairs) to investigate the truth.14
On 22 July 2008, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Past Affairs resolved to begin an investigation and conducted it. On 18 August 2009, at its 106th meeting, the Commission determined Choe Neung-jin's violation of the National Defense Security Act case to be a "truth finding," and on 17 November 2009 it issued a partial correction of the content of the meeting.14
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Past Affairs concluded that the Central High Court-Martial of the Army, which on 20 January 1951 sentenced Choe Neung-jin to death, had no legal basis for its establishment, since the Constitution of the Republic at that time did not recognize the establishment of a "special court" such as a court-martial. Moreover, its composition was not made up of judges qualified by law, so the body could hardly be regarded as a court in the judicial sense. Therefore, it was difficult to regard the case as one that had received a final judgment from a court as stipulated by the basic law, and it could be concluded that the judgment was void. The Commission also determined, regarding the court-martial's reasoning for the death sentence against Choe, that it had interpreted Choe's actions, which sought to avoid fratricidal strife and to end the war peacefully, in an excessively biased manner, sufficiently distorting the objective facts, and that a retrial and judicial acceptance of that determination were necessary.1416
On 27 August 2015, the Seoul Central District Court, Criminal Panel 28, in the retrial of Choe Neung-jin for violation of the National Defense Security Act, ruled that the case fell under the category of the prosecution not being proven, and acquitted the late Choe Neung-jin of violating the National Defense Security Act.1718
Family
- Father: Choe Gyeong-heum
- Siblings: Choe Neung-chan, Choe Neung-hyeon, Choe Neung-ik
- Wife: Yi Pung-ok
- Sons: Choi Pil-lip (eldest son), Choe Man-rip, Choe Bong-rip; daughters: Choe Hwa-seon, Choe Ja-rip
- Grandson: Choe U-seok (reporter, Chosun Ilbo)
각주