한국전쟁 발발 직후 제주지역 예비검속과 집단학살의 성격

Abstract

The case of the preventive detention in Jeju area just after Korean war has an important meanings to analyze and understand the mass killing against civilians. The most cases of these mass murder has a lot of limitations to seek and restore of details of these cases because there are few official documents to prove the violence by the state including military and police authorities. Compared to this, it is easier to approach to the truth of the preventive detention in Jeju region because it has relatively many police documents. This case is completed with the massacre through the detention and classification after arrest of the suspected civilians by the police stations and substations of Jeju region in accordance to the instructions of the police headquarter under the ministry of home affair. During these processes, the police mobilized the rightist groups like Korean youth Group(Deahan Cheongnyeon Dan), Northwest region Youth group(Seobuk Cheongnyeon Dan). The power of final decision for mass murder of these detainees was held by the Headquarter of Marine Corps in Jeju, because the military supervised the police affairs under Martial law. This structure of Jeju preventive case, that is, the background, process, and result of this case has given us lots of help to understand the truth of civilian massacre just after Korean war. Furthermore, it gives us important clues to understand the whole paradigm of civilian mass killings in main land. Jeju case shows us that civilian mass murders had been executed organizedly and systematically by the instructions from the order line of government, military army and police. In the cases of land, the civilian massacres seems to have the same paradigm as the Jeju island according to the related testimonies even though there are not enough official records to prove the whole structure and process of it. This means that Jeju preventive detention case was not individual and special one for this region, but a part of the universal structure of the whole country, so called cross correlations. In general, the preventive detention case of Jeju region has not only the common characters of the other parts' cases of the whole country, but also regional characters. As the commons, it has : subjects were mainly the police, it happened as the pre-step or previous procedure for mass murders, the process of mass killing was arrest, detention and execution, and the objects were mostly leftists or suspects of leftist. While it also has its regional characters. That is to say, the objects were usually related to the 4?3 incident. However, it also has regional characters. First, in the cases of land, the objects were mainly related to the Kukminbodoyeonmaeng(National confederation for preservation and guidance). Of course, Bodoyeonmaeng connected to the leftists and the related people to 4?3 incident also connected to the leftist group like People's Committee, Farmers Committee, Minaecheong(the Alliance for democratic and patriotic Youth) and Labor Party of South Korea. However, it has important meaning that the main objects of preventive detention of Jeju region were categorized and centralized on 4?3 incident. In Jeju region, Bodoyeonmaeng was not well organized like land, so it couldn't be the primary standard of distinction for the preliminary arrest. Therefore, the connection to 4?3 incident was the main measures to judge of personal thought and identity in the Jeju region. The preventive detention of Jeju region in 1950 means the temporal and spacial extension of 4?3 incident. After all, this case shows us that state intended for the annihilation of specific groups related to the 4?3 incident. That is to say, it is the concrete expression of the intentionality of state violence and politicide. Second, the mass killings process of Jeju incident is different from that of the mainland. At the mainland, the preventive detainees who were mainly Bodoyeonmaeng members were mostly mass murdered, while those of Jeju island were not only mass murdered through detention, evaluation and analysis, but also imprisoned for a long time or released. Furthermore, the conflict about legality or authority of preventive detention often happened among state organizations like the military, the prosecution, and the police which led the preventive detention and massacre. In reality, some policemen refused the instructions from government or military authority and set them free independently. Even though it could not be generalized as the phenomena of whole Jeju region, it shows the each organization related to the preventive detention relatively had their own autonomy. The Jeju island just after Korean war had characteristics of comparatively stable regional society. Therefore, the military and the police of Jeju region pursued their own autonomy without unilateral following to the central government's instructions. Third, there were many accusations or squeals among residents themselves. Many preventive detainees were victimized with false accusations and mudslinging. This means that ideological confrontations and conflicts of this area after 4?3 incident changed to the personal revenge during Korean war. After all, the preventive detention of Jeju island was another war in regional society. On one hand, it was the war between state and individual ; on the other hand, it included another war between person versus person. This shows that the inner order of community had been destructed and personal emotion also destroyed since 4?3 incident. Fourth, the victims of Jeju preventive detention have one meaningful characterist. In the aspect of the age and proportion of victims, 20's and 30's males comprise the highest proportion in every region of Island. This means that the most active youth generation was the main target of the preventive detention and murder accordance to the influence of 4?3 incident. Therefore, the preventive detention case was the extension of 4?3 incident. Moreover, it means that the resistance movement represented by the 4?3 incident was connected to the sacrifice of the preventive detention case.