South Korea

The Seoul High Court rejected Japan's extradition request for a Chinese national who, in December 2011, set fire to the gate (shinmon) of Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, causing minor damage and a risk of fire spreading to nearby structures. The suspect had acted in protest against the Japanese government's position on the "comfort women" (wartime sexual slavery) issue and its officials' continued visits to Yasukuni Shrine, which he regarded as a symbol of militarism. His maternal grandmother had been a Korean comfort woman abducted to China, and his paternal grandfather had died fighting the Japanese as a resistance soldier. The arson caused no casualties, and the damage was quickly extinguished by shrine security.The court conducted an extensive analysis of the concept of "political offence" under international and comparative law, distinguishing between absolute political crimes (acts directed solely against the state's political order) and relative political crimes (ordinary offences committed for a political purpose). Applying a six-factor balancing test — motivation, purpose, nature of the target, organic connection between the act and the political goal, legal character of the act, and proportionality between harm caused and political objective — the court concluded that the arson was predominantly a relative political crime rather than an ordinary criminal act.Key findings included: (i) the motivation was political protest, not personal gain; (ii) the purpose was to pressure the Japanese government to change its policy on historical recognition; (iii) Yasukuni Shrine, though legally a private religious corporation, carries political symbolism equivalent to a state facility; (iv) the act was organically connected to the political purpose, which was substantially achieved through the media attention generated; (v) the damage was closer in character to vandalism than arson; and (vi) there were no casualties and the property damage was minor, so there was no disproportionality. The court also considered the broader political context — the Korea–Japan historical dispute over comfort women, UN resolutions calling on Japan to accept legal responsibility, and resolutions adopted by the US, Dutch, Canadian and European parliaments — and held that extraditing the suspect would amount to a denial of South Korea's own constitutional values and the universal values espoused by the international community.

The Seoul High Court rejected Vietnam's extradition request for a Vietnamese-American national accused of organizing and directing a series of terrorist bombing plots against targets in Vietnam between 1999 and 2001. The suspect was the alleged Prime Minister of a self-declared government-in-exile (established in California in 1995) aimed at overthrowing the Vietnamese communist regime and establishing a liberal democratic government. The charged conduct included directing operatives to transport explosives into Vietnam on multiple occasions, planning bombings near Ho Chi Minh statues and public buildings, and organizing an attack on the Vietnamese embassy in Thailand. All but one incident ended at the preparatory stage without casualties.The court held that the offences constituted "relative political crimes" — a combination of ordinary criminal conduct (preparation and conspiracy to use explosives) and political opposition to the requesting state's political order. Under Article 3(1)(a) of the Korea–Vietnam Extradition Treaty, extradition is prohibited where the requested offence is of a political character, and that determination is reserved to the requested state. The court further found that neither of the treaty's exceptions applied: (i) Vietnam was not a party to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, so that treaty could not qualify as a "multilateral international agreement to which both states are parties"; and (ii) UN Security Council Resolution 1373 did not constitute a "multilateral international agreement" within the meaning of the treaty, as it lacked the procedural and substantive characteristics of a treaty (no ratification, no reservations mechanism, no UN Secretariat registration). The court also declined to apply Article 8(1)(3) of the domestic Extradition Act (exception for crimes threatening the lives of multiple persons), holding that the treaty prevails over the domestic statute.