Overview
Tae-wan's Law is the name given to the 2015 partial amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act (Act No. 13454) that abolished the statute of limitations for murder. It was adopted at the plenary session of the National Assembly on July 24, 2015, as the substitute bill of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and took effect upon promulgation on July 31. The name derives from Kim Tae-wan, a child victim of the 1999 Daegu child sulfuric acid attack. As the statute of limitations in that case approached expiry, public opinion grew strongly that murder cases should not be subject to a time limit, and this accelerated the amendment. However, that case itself was not covered by the law, as the limitation period was completed following the Supreme Court's dismissal of a second appeal just before the law took effect.
Background
The statute of limitations system
The statute of limitations is a system under which the state may no longer bring prosecution once a certain period has passed after a crime has been committed. The rationale given is that the passage of time causes evidence to disappear, making a fair trial difficult, and that long-standing factual situations should be respected. The Criminal Procedure Act, enacted in 1954, set the limitation period for crimes punishable by death at 15 years, and murder fell within this category.
The 2007 amendment
With the statutes of limitations for the Lee Hyung-ho kidnapping and murder case (January 2006) and the Frog Boys disappearance case (March 2006) expiring in succession, and the 2007 film The Voice of the Monster (그놈 목소리) generating a major response, public demand for extending the limitation period grew. The amended Criminal Procedure Act, which took effect on December 21, 2007, extended the limitation period for crimes punishable by death from 15 to 25 years. However, because the supplementary provisions applied the previous rules to crimes committed before the amendment, murder cases that occurred earlier still reached the end of their 15-year limitation period.
Precedents in the field of sexual crimes
In the field of sexual crimes, the exclusion of limitation periods was introduced first. In 2010, the limitation period for sexual violence crimes supported by scientific evidence such as DNA was extended by ten years, and in 2011, following the film The Crucible (도가니), the limitation period was excluded for rape and similar crimes against children under 13 and persons with disabilities. The amended Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, which took effect in 2013, provided that no limitation period would apply to rape resulting in death and similar offenses.
Legislative process
In September 2012, the government submitted to the National Assembly an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act containing the abolition of the statute of limitations for murder, but it was not processed. In July 2014, public opinion shifted sharply when it became known that the limitation period for the Daegu child sulfuric acid attack case was about to expire and that the victim's family was keeping the limitation period alive through a criminal complaint and a request for reconsideration of the prosecution's decision. In March 2015, Seo Young-kyo and other members of the New Politics Alliance for Democracy introduced an amendment with the same purpose, and a substitute bill of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, which combined several bills, was passed at the plenary session of the National Assembly on July 24, 2015. Meanwhile, on July 10, 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed the family's second appeal in the sulfuric acid attack case, so the case that gave the law its name ultimately fell outside its scope. The amended law was promulgated and took effect on July 31, 2015.
Main provisions
- Exclusion of the statute of limitations (newly established Article 253-2): The statute of limitations does not apply to crimes that caused a death and are punishable by death. However, accomplices (aiding and abetting) are excluded.
- Transitional provisions (Supplementary Provision Article 2): This provision applies to crimes committed before the law took effect, provided their statute of limitations has not yet been completed. This is so-called quasi-retroactive application. Calculated on the basis of the 15-year limitation period then in force, it covered murder cases occurring (with the victim dying) on or after August 1, 2000.
- Excluded crimes: Crimes such as bodily injury resulting in death, assault resulting in death, and rape resulting in death, where intent to kill is not recognized, were excluded because their statutory penalties are lower.
Application cases
At the time the law took effect, the media reported that long-unsolved murder cases from August 2000 onward could continue to be investigated. Examples cited included the Yakchon Crossroads murder case (August 2000), the Daejeon KB Bank robbery-murder case (2001), and the Pocheon middle school girl murder case (2003).
- Naju Deuldeun River High School Girl Murder Case: A case that occurred in February 2001. A suspect was identified through DNA comparison in 2012, but in 2014 was cleared due to insufficient evidence. After the amendment, the case was reinvestigated, the suspect was indicted in 2016, and in January 2017 he was sentenced to life imprisonment at first instance, which was reported as the "first guilty verdict since Tae-wan's Law took effect." The verdict was finalized by the Supreme Court in December of the same year.
- Yakchon Crossroads murder case: A case that occurred on August 10, 2000, and the law took effect just before the 15-year limitation period expired. A person who had originally been convicted was acquitted in a retrial, after which the person identified as the true culprit was indicted and the conviction was finalized.
- Daejeon KB Bank robbery-murder case: A case that occurred in December 2001. Because the statute of limitations was removed, the suspects were arrested in 2022 and brought to trial.
Debate
- Arguments in favor: It was emphasized that crimes that take a life should be punished regardless of the passage of time, and that the development of scientific investigation such as DNA analysis has made it possible to solve even old cases. The rights of victims' families and the demand for social justice were also major driving forces.
- Cautious views: Critics pointed out that as time passes, evidence and witnesses disappear, increasing the risk of wrongful convictions and potentially weakening the defendant's right of defense. Concerns were also raised that limited investigative manpower could be spread thin across long-unsolved cases.
- Limits of retroactivity: The law could not be applied to cases whose limitation periods had already been completed, so the sulfuric acid attack case that prompted the law, as well as the Frog Boys and Lee Hyung-ho cases, were not remedied. Reviving an expired limitation period was not accepted because of the constitutional principle against retroactive punishment and concerns for legal stability.
- Naming: There is both criticism that attaching a victim's name to legislation makes lawmaking emotional, and a positive assessment that it keeps the victim in public memory.
Impact and significance
Since Tae-wan's Law took effect, the police have expanded dedicated investigative teams for long-unsolved cases in each regional police agency and have re-examined old murder cases. Combined with the DNA database established under the Act on the Use and Protection of DNA Identification Information, which took effect in 2010, new suspects have been identified in several cases whose limitation periods remained. The law is regarded as an example of how the complaint raised by one victim's family changed the statute of limitations system, which is a foundation of criminal procedure.
References