Chun Doo-hwan

In his memoirs, Chun notably denied helicopter gunfire and called Father Cho Bi-o, a witness to the repression, a liar. He was criminally convicted of defamation in 2020. After his death, separate civil proceedings culminated on 12 February 2026 in a Supreme Court ruling confirming that several passages contained false statements about Gwangju, together with damages and publication restrictions until the disputed passages were removed.

State of the evidence

Established by a court

Legal status — source text

Criminal conviction in 2020; appeal ended after death; 2026 Supreme Court civil judgment upheld damages and publication restrictions

Attribution

Personally implicated

Course of the proceedings

1. Formally charged — Formal charge before the current outcome

As part of the new regime's campaign of "social purification", more than 60,000 people were arrested and tens of thousands sent to Samcheong camps. Official investigations documented arbitrary detention, violence, forced training, compulsory labour and deaths. A truth commission subsequently declared the martial law order underpinning the operation unconstitutional and unlawful.

State of the evidence

Documented

Legal status — source text

Official bodies later found Martial Law Order No. 13 unconstitutional and unlawful; compensation and civil claims followed

Attribution

Directly implicated

While Chun was excused from regularly appearing at his Gwangju trial because of his age and health problems, including claims of Alzheimer's disease, he was filmed playing golf and later attending a luncheon connected to the anniversary of the 12 December coup. The images fuelled allegations that his reasons for missing court hearings were not credible.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

In 1980, the military regime imposed sweeping media restructuring, including closures, forced mergers and mass dismissals. South Korea's Truth and Reconciliation Commission subsequently found that the operation had violated press freedom and recommended redress for affected media organisations and journalists.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated