Why the Miryang Gang Rape Case Still Sparks Outrage After Twenty Years, Seen From the Rule of Law
The Miryang gang rape case that occurred in 2004 resurfaced as a social issue in 2024. YouTube videos disclosing the perpetrators identities spread explosively, and alongside this, concerns were raised that private retribution undermines the rule of law. This article re-organizes the course of this case and examines where that outrage originates, from the perspective of the rule of law.
Restating the course of the case
The Miryang case is a group sexual crime that occurred in 2004 in Miryang, South Gyeongsang Province, and is summarized as follows.
- Perpetrators: about 44 high school boys
- Direct victims: 5 minor females including a middle school girl
- Span: repeated over about one year
- Investigation result: only 13 placed in pretrial detention; others released with warnings
- Criminal disposition: 10 indicted, 20 transferred to juvenile court, 13 no-prosecution dispositions, 1 protective disposition
Of about 119 direct and indirect perpetrators, meaningful criminal punishment was effectively absent. The 10 indicted were also sent to juvenile reform institutions, leaving virtually no perpetrator with a criminal record.
| Stage | Result | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Direct perpetrators | About 44 | About 119 including indirect/accessory |
| Pretrial detention | 13 | Others warned and released |
| Indicted | 10 | All transferred to juvenile court |
| No prosecution | 13 | Settlement effect under offense-on-complaint era |
| Final criminal record | Essentially none | Only 1 had record from a different case |
Secondary victimization and the shadow of offense-on-complaint
What deepened the weight of this case was secondary victimization in the local community. A survey at the time reportedly showed 64 percent answering that responsibility for sex crimes lay with women, shocking the entire country.
Compounding this, sex crimes at the time were offenses requiring a victim complaint. The victims guardian (her father) joined with the perpetrators parents to force settlement on the victim, and ultimately settlements were reached with some perpetrators for about 50 million KRW. Under the offense-on-complaint structure, settlement effectively meant non-prosecution, so the case ended on the spot.
Looking back at this case as an attorney, the heaviest line is this: the victims lives were not smooth, the perpetrators were living well. That asymmetry is the deepest root of the outrage exploding again twenty years later.
Two sides of the doxxing debate
Two evaluations clash regarding the recent disclosure of perpetrators identities through YouTube.
- One side: the rule of law is undermined; the victim has asked it to stop
- The other side: it is societys self-cleansing response when the state failed to fulfill its responsibility
This conflict is not a simple opposition between private retribution and the rule of law. A deeper question lies inside. Has the state provided punishment that citizens can accept, and where should citizens outrage flow when the state has failed to fulfill that responsibility.
Two conditions for the rule of law to function
The fundamental principle of the rule of law is that punishment within the bounds the members of society can accept is delivered consistently. If punishment goes beyond or falls short, society loses trust.
- If punishment is excessive: it drifts toward mob justice, and the legal system itself loses legitimacy
- If punishment falls short: citizens trust collapses and the desire for private retribution grows
The outrage over the Miryang case can be seen as a result of the latter. When cases with dozens of victims end in short sentences repeatedly, citizens naturally arrive at the conclusion that this society does not protect me.
The common pattern across school violence, fraud, and sex crimes
There is a reason the Miryang case became an outlet for the eras outrage, not just a single-case issue. Similar asymmetry recurs in other areas.
- Cases where a school-violence victim is countersued for defamation after going public
- Cases where a fraud victim takes an extreme choice while the perpetrator typically lives unaffected
- Cases where a sex-crime victim suffers lifelong trauma while the perpetrator returns to society after a comparatively short sentence
As this pattern accumulates, citizens come to share the anxiety that if I suffer the same harm, the state will not protect me either. That anxiety is the deepest foundation of the desire for private retribution.
So where do we go from here?
If unlimited disclosure of perpetrators identities is permitted, society typically slides into other side effects. A mob-justice atmosphere, harm to the innocent, runaway behavior that ignores the victims wishes. The concern itself is legitimate.
But when raising that concern, what must also be pointed out is: why citizens have come to this level of outrage, and where the true direction of that outrage should be aimed.
- Question for the legislature: adequacy of sentencing standards, limits of offense-on-complaint and offense-not-prosecuted-if-not-wanted structures
- Question for the judiciary: consistency of sentencing, the range of sentences that members of society can accept
- Question for civil society: the limits of private retribution and recovery of a responsible public square
Frequently asked questions
Q. Is the claim that private retribution undermines the rule of law correct? A. In principle, yes. But to raise that claim, the premise must also be met that the state is providing punishment and protection that citizens can accept. The core question is whether we can simply say bear it when that premise has collapsed.
Q. What legal response is available to victims in such cases now? A. For incidents that occurred after the abolition of the offense-on-complaint regime, investigation and prosecution proceed regardless of the victims will. But for cases like Miryang under the old regime, criminal disposition has already ended. Responses may remain in the areas of defamation and civil damages.
Q. Can an attorneys opinion on current-affairs cases change outcomes? A. It cannot change outcomes directly, but it can contribute to bringing citizens perspectives into legislative and policy discussion.
In closing
The outrage over a case twenty years old is not simply an old case being revisited but stems from citizens awareness that similar asymmetry continues today. The rule of law functions only when consistency of punishment and citizens trust live together. May this article serve as one strand in rethinking this case.
Written by Noh Jong-eon, Managing Attorney, Jonjae Law Firm / Last reviewed 2026-05-30
This article is intended for general legal information and does not guarantee the outcome of any specific case. Analysis of current-affairs matters is limited to general analysis and does not guarantee the outcome of any individual case.
