Fate of Two North Korean POWs Draws South Korean Legal Fight

A humanitarian dispute reaches South Korea

The fate of two North Korean soldiers held in Ukraine has become the center of a dispute involving Kyiv, Seoul, Moscow and human rights activists. The soldiers, identified only by their surnames Ri and Baek, were captured by Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk region in January 2025 after being wounded while fighting alongside Russian troops.

Both men have reportedly asked to go to South Korea rather than return to North Korea. Their request has created a difficult legal and diplomatic problem. Prisoners of war are generally expected to be released or repatriated after hostilities end, yet returning these two men to North Korea could expose them to torture, imprisonment or punishment against their families.

The case has also led to a police investigation involving six South Korean activists. The group traveled to Kyiv from May 7 to 11 without receiving the special authorization required under Seoul’s travel ban on Ukraine. They met Ukrainian officials, civil society representatives and personnel from the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

The activists say they went to urge Ukraine not to send the soldiers back to North Korea and to ensure that the men’s wishes are respected.

Why were the soldiers sent to Russia?

North Korea has deepened its military relationship with Russia since Moscow launched its full scale invasion of Ukraine. South Korean officials have estimated that Pyongyang sent about 15,000 troops to support Russian operations, particularly around the Kursk border region.

The deployment followed a military cooperation agreement between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Russian President Vladimir Putin. North Korean forces have reportedly received combat experience, military support and other benefits in return for assisting Russia.

Ri, 27, and Baek, 22, told interviewers that they were sent to Russia in 2024. Their injuries were severe. Ri suffered wounds to his arm and jaw, while Baek sustained a serious leg injury in a drone attack and now uses crutches.

Their accounts describe a military culture in which capture is treated as betrayal. North Korean soldiers are reportedly taught that death is preferable to becoming a prisoner. Activists and defectors say some North Korean troops have been instructed to use grenades or other means to avoid capture.

Ri described the stigma attached to captivity during an interview recorded at a Ukrainian detention facility in October 2025.

If you become a prisoner, it’s like you’re a traitor. It’s like betraying the country.

Baek gave a similar account of the danger of return.

If I go back to North Korea, I won’t survive. I hope I can go to South Korea, not North Korea.

What do the prisoners want?

The two soldiers have expressed a wish to settle in South Korea during interviews, meetings and written messages. In a letter distributed by the defector group Gyeoreol Unification Solidarity, they said they had decided to go south and viewed South Koreans as relatives.

Ri has also said that he does not know whether his mother is still alive and fears that his capture may bring consequences for his family. North Korea has long operated a system in which relatives of people accused of political disloyalty can face discrimination, detention or forced labor.

South Korean activists believe the men’s fear is credible. A return could be especially dangerous because surrender is treated as a serious military and political offense. The soldiers may also be questioned about their time in Russia, their contact with Ukrainians and their public statements about seeking asylum.

North Korea has not publicly commented on the two prisoners. Russia has repeatedly sought information about the possibility of their return, according to Ukrainian authorities. Activists say this makes it essential that the men are treated as individuals with rights rather than as part of a possible negotiation between Moscow and Kyiv.

Why does international law complicate the decision?

The Third Geneva Convention sets rules for prisoners of war. It says prisoners should generally be released and repatriated without delay after active hostilities have ended. The principle is designed to prevent indefinite detention after a conflict.

That rule does not remove concerns about torture or persecution. International refugee and human rights law includes the principle of non refoulement, which bars states from sending a person to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe that the person could face torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Elizabeth Salmon, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea, said Ukraine had reasonable grounds to believe the soldiers could face torture if returned. She also said that, in certain circumstances, Ukraine could transfer them to a third country or grant them protection.

The legal question is complicated by the soldiers’ status. They are prisoners captured during an international armed conflict, yet they also appear to be seeking protection from their own government. Ukrainian authorities must consider the Geneva Conventions, the men’s personal choices, security concerns and relations with Russia and North Korea.

Why does Seoul say they are South Korean citizens?

South Korea bases its position on Article 3 of its Constitution, which defines the territory of the Republic of Korea as the entire Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands. Under this interpretation, North Koreans are legally regarded as citizens of South Korea, although practical arrangements are required before a person can be transferred and resettled.

Seoul has told Kyiv that it is prepared to accept North Korean prisoners who freely choose to go south. The two soldiers were excluded from a major prisoner exchange between Ukraine and Russia in May 2025 after South Korea asked that their possible transfer be considered separately.

South Korea and Ukraine discussed the issue directly in June. Foreign Minister Cho Hyun and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha agreed to seek a solution based on international law and humanitarian principles. South Korean President Lee Jae myung and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also discussed the matter in Ankara in July on the sidelines of a NATO summit.

Those discussions have not produced a public agreement. The governments have not announced a timetable, a transfer route or the legal procedure that would take the soldiers from Ukrainian custody to South Korea.

Why are six activists under investigation?

South Korea placed Ukraine under a Level 4 travel ban in February 2022 because of the war. Citizens may enter only after receiving exceptional approval to use their passports. Unauthorized travel to a banned country can result in up to one year in prison or a fine of up to 10 million won, about $7,000.

The six activists include Jang Se yul, a North Korean defector and former intelligence officer who leads Gyeoreol Unification Solidarity, North Korean human rights activist Lee Byung rim and Kang Dong wan, a professor and chairman of the group Tongil Korea.

They say they sought permission before traveling and submitted documents requested by the Foreign Ministry. The activists claim officials repeatedly asked for additional material and eventually sought a recommendation from the Ministry of Unification. Because the meetings in Kyiv had already been arranged, the group traveled despite not receiving approval.

Kang described the alleged recommendation request as unprecedented and said the group had been in contact with the Foreign Ministry for about two months.

We went to the Ministry of Unification and submitted the documents, but the ministry had no reason to provide such approval. Ultimately, we were not able to obtain it.

The Foreign Ministry disputes that account. It says it did not require approval from a specific ministry. Instead, it pointed to a provision allowing exceptional passport use when a mission serves national interests or business activity and carries a recommendation from the head of the relevant central government agency.

Police have booked the six activists for suspected violations of the Passport Act. The Foreign Ministry has declined to discuss details while the investigation continues.

Does the travel case affect human rights advocacy?

The investigation has produced a debate about how far Seoul can restrict travel during wartime and whether the rules are being applied fairly. The government says the ban protects citizens from danger and supports national security. It also warns that travel to active conflict zones can create demands for emergency assistance or cause diplomatic problems.

Human rights advocates argue that the group was traveling for a humanitarian purpose and had tried to obtain permission. Shin Hee seok, a legal analyst with the Transitional Justice Working Group, said movement restrictions may be lawful but should not be arbitrary, discriminatory or disproportionate.

The activists also question why humanitarian work does not receive a clearer exception. Their supporters say the case could discourage defectors and rights groups from raising urgent concerns involving North Korean citizens abroad.

The government maintains that the issue is the unauthorized use of passports, not the activists’ political views. Officials have said South Koreans who enter travel ban countries without permission may face criminal proceedings regardless of their purpose.

What could happen next?

Ukraine retains control of the immediate decision. It could continue holding the men while their status is negotiated, transfer them to South Korea or another country, or provide a form of protection. Any move would require coordination with Seoul and careful security planning.

South Korea’s stated willingness to accept the soldiers is significant, yet a public declaration alone does not complete a transfer. Authorities must confirm that the men’s choice is voluntary, arrange their safe movement and determine how they will be treated under Ukrainian and international law.

The case also carries diplomatic risks. Sending the soldiers to North Korea could trigger criticism over the danger of torture. Sending them to South Korea could anger Pyongyang and complicate Kyiv’s dealings with Moscow. Russia may also seek their return because they fought under Russian command, although the soldiers are North Korean nationals.

For the activists, the priority is to prevent any forced return before the men’s wishes and safety have been fully assessed. For Seoul, the case tests the practical meaning of its constitutional claim that North Koreans are South Korean citizens. For Kyiv, it is a rare prisoner case involving a third country that has become directly involved in the war.

Key Points

• Two North Korean soldiers captured in Kursk are being held in Ukraine.
• Both men have reportedly asked to go to South Korea.
• They fear torture, imprisonment or death if returned to North Korea.
• Six South Korean activists face a Passport Act investigation after visiting Kyiv without approval.
• Seoul and Kyiv have discussed a humanitarian solution, but no transfer agreement has been announced.
• Ukraine must weigh prisoner of war rules, non refoulement and the soldiers’ expressed wishes.