Overdue apology issued to fishers wrongly accused of being NK spies

A former chief of a local police station has apologized for an illegal police investigation that occurred over half a century ago into fishers were then wrongly convicted of being spies for North Korea.

Lee Eun-sil, the recently retired chief of Goseong Police Station in Gangwon Province, visited the fishers and offered her apology, according to the victims' group based in the province. This was among her last actions as police chief, and marked the first time an incumbent head of an investigative body apologized to victims related to the incident.

The victims were among 3,651 fishers abducted by North Korea between 1953 and May 1987, according to recently revealed data related to an inter-Korea summit. All but 419 of the abducted were released, but many of them were accused of being spies for the communist state upon their return, and were coerced into making false confessions during investigations that involved torture.

The victims in Goseong and Sokcho were among the fishers who were kidnapped in 1968, when 756 were abducted by the North.

"On behalf of the country, I apologize for your pains caused by the investigation. ... While carrying out the tasks related to the return of the kidnapped fishermen back in 1968, the country and the police failed to abide by the law or honor the basic rights, despite it being their duty to protect human rights," Lee said in the letter of apology presented to the victims.

She told local media outlets that she thought it was her last duty as a police officer before retirement.

Chuncheon District Court, also in Gangwon Province, cleared the victims of spying charges in a ruling last year, following a retrial that took place over 50 years after they were abducted. The victims' group launched a lawsuit seeking compensation and an official apology from the prosecutor general.

The court recently commenced the process for the state to pay compensation to the victims, but the prosecution denied a request for an official apology. It claimed that the illegal actions by the state did not constitute defamation as asserted by the victims, and that an official apology would not be a necessary to restore their honor.