3·1 운동 참가자들에 대한 판결의 형사법적 의미- 길선주에 대한 무죄판결을 중심으로 -

Criminal penalties for national representatives and participants of the March 1st Movement were mostly dealt with by the Security Law. However, it was not easy for Japan to punish peaceful demonstrations except for some violent demonstrations. Although the court tried to raise the penalty according to No. 7 decree, it was not easy due to the principle of criminal justice, which requires the application of an action method favorable to the defendant, if the punishment is aggravated. Among them, Gil Seon-Joo, one of the representatives of the March 1st Movement, was acquitted following not guilty decision. In this paper, we wanted to review the contents of the above acquittal decision and review the meaning of the criminal judgment by Japan against participants of the March 1st Movement. As a tool for this review, the Japanese imperialists have reviewed what laws were transplanted into other colonies such as Taiwan and what criminal laws were to be established, and re-explained from the perspective of modern criminal law. In conclusion, Japan followed that it applied double standards such as applying somewhat mitigated criminal procedure and evidence law to certain participants under the rules of assimilation and exercised an excessive right of punishment to certain people by the necessity of discrimination. We look forward to analyzing more rulings in the future and confirming the distortion of criminal laws in Japanese Colonial Period.