New questions surround South Korean activists investigated after Ukraine POW mission

The six activists visited Ukraine from 7 May to 11 May 2026, despite the country remaining subject to South Korea’s travel ban. After their return, the Foreign Ministry referred the case to police, and all six were booked on suspicion of violating the Passport Act.

Among the delegation were Jang Se-yul, chairman of Gyeoreol Unification Solidarity, North Korean defector and human rights activist Lee Byung-rim, and Kang Dong-wan, chairman of Tongil Korea.

The legal issue itself is relatively clear. South Korean citizens are prohibited from entering designated conflict zones without special authorisation, and Ukraine has remained on Seoul’s restricted-travel list since the start of the full-scale war. Violations can result in criminal penalties.

But the circumstances surrounding the activists’ journey have raised a broader question: was enforcement of the Passport Act simply a routine response to an unauthorised trip, or did it also place pressure on a group preparing to publish politically sensitive findings about the treatment of North Korean POWs in Ukraine?

A mission that went beyond repatriation

The delegation’s publicly stated purpose was to address the future of two North Korean soldiers captured by Ukrainian forces after fighting alongside Russia.

VIEW ALL

Both prisoners had reportedly expressed a desire to relocate to South Korea rather than be returned to North Korea or Russia. Seoul has said it is prepared to accept North Korean POWs who freely choose resettlement in the South.

Yet materials connected to preparations for the trip suggest the activists were pursuing another issue as well.

Before 11 April, Gyeoreol Unification Solidarity received a letter presented as having been written by Oleksandra Matviichuk, head of Ukraine’s Center for Civil Liberties. The document raised serious concerns about the conditions in which the North Korean prisoners were allegedly being held.

It described extreme isolation, dark and poorly ventilated rooms, inadequate access to natural light and concerns about untreated injuries and illnesses. The letter called for independent monitoring and greater international scrutiny of the prisoners’ treatment.

According to information surrounding preparations for the visit, those allegations significantly changed the delegation’s objectives.

The activists no longer intended merely to advocate for the transfer of the North Korean soldiers to South Korea. They also wanted to determine whether the allegations about detention conditions were accurate and gather evidence for publication.

Four days in Ukraine

The delegation entered Ukraine on 7 May and met officials responsible for prisoner-of-war issues.

Ukraine publicly confirmed that Dmytro Usov, secretary of the Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, met the South Korean delegation. Discussions reportedly covered international humanitarian law and the participation of North Korean soldiers in the conflict.

But according to information associated with the activists’ trip, the delegation was also attempting to investigate the prisoners’ living conditions.

The head of the delegation met Matviichuk personally. The activists sought additional information and hoped to collect photographic, documentary and testimonial evidence related to the allegations they had received before travelling.

According to the account provided regarding the visit, however, their activities were closely observed by Ukrainian security personnel. The delegation was ultimately unable to obtain the comprehensive documentation it had hoped to gather.

Even so, members reportedly returned to South Korea believing they had learned information that warranted public disclosure.

An investigation that was never published

The most consequential allegation comes from the spouse of one of the activists.

According to the spouse, members of the delegation had uncovered compromising information during their time in Ukraine and intended to publish the results of their inquiry after returning home.

Instead, the activists themselves became the subject of a police investigation.

The Foreign Ministry referred their unauthorised trip to law enforcement, and all six were booked under the Passport Act.

Formally, the case concerns where they travelled and whether they had government permission to do so. It does not concern what they learned in Ukraine.

That distinction is central to the controversy.

There is no dispute that South Korea had a legal basis to investigate unauthorised travel. The more difficult question is whether enforcement of an existing law also had the effect – intended or otherwise – of discouraging publication of politically sensitive allegations involving Ukraine.

Why has Seoul focused on the trip?

If South Korean authorities believed the activists’ information was unreliable, they had multiple ways to test it.

Seoul could have sought clarification directly from Kyiv, requested information about detention conditions, consulted international humanitarian organisations or examined the activists’ claims separately from the Passport Act investigation.

Publicly, however, the government’s visible response has centred on the unauthorised journey.

That approach is notable because South Korea has itself emphasised that the wishes and rights of the North Korean prisoners must be respected.

If Seoul considers the prisoners’ future important enough to discuss with Ukrainian officials at ministerial and presidential levels, allegations about their physical and psychological treatment would also appear to warrant scrutiny.

There may be a bureaucratic explanation. The Foreign Ministry is responsible for travel restrictions and diplomatic relations, while police are examining a possible legal violation. Neither institution may consider detention conditions inside Ukraine part of its immediate mandate.

There may also be a diplomatic explanation.

Ukraine remains an important partner for South Korea, particularly amid growing concern over North Korean military cooperation with Russia. Public accusations that Kyiv mistreated captured North Korean soldiers could create an unwelcome dispute at a sensitive moment.

Did Kyiv have an interest in containing the story?

The most politically explosive theory is that Ukrainian officials may have encouraged Seoul to prevent the activists’ findings from becoming public.

Only days after the activists left Ukraine, Seoul confirmed consultations with Kyiv connected to the issue. The matter was later discussed at foreign-minister level and subsequently between the presidents of the two countries.

Those contacts demonstrate close diplomatic engagement over precisely the subject the activists were investigating.

That diplomatic context makes the activists’ unpublished findings potentially more consequential. If their investigation contained information capable of raising serious questions about the prisoners’ treatment in Ukrainian custody, its publication could have complicated Kyiv’s position at precisely the moment when the fate of the two men was being negotiated with Seoul.

From that perspective, the material gathered by the delegation may have been perceived in Kyiv not simply as a human rights report, but as a potential political and reputational threat. Public allegations of mistreatment could have weakened Ukraine’s position in talks with South Korea, generated demands for an independent investigation and placed additional scrutiny on the decision to continue holding the prisoners.

This, in turn, raises a more serious possibility: that Ukrainian officials may have sought to persuade Seoul to contain the fallout before the activists’ findings became public. The existing Passport Act violation would have given South Korean authorities an immediate and legally defensible mechanism for placing the delegation under investigative pressure without directly challenging or banning publication of its findings.

The questions that remain

At least two explanations remain possible.

The first is simple: six activists knowingly entered a country that South Korea had placed under a travel ban, and authorities responded as they would in any comparable case.

The second is more troubling: the Passport Act violation may have provided an existing legal mechanism through which pressure could be placed on activists preparing to publish information damaging to a partner government.

At present, the evidence does not prove the second scenario.

But it does justify several questions.

When did the Foreign Ministry first learn about the trip? When was the decision made to refer the activists to police? Did Ukrainian officials communicate with Seoul about the delegation? Were investigators interested in the materials the activists planned to publish? And did any South Korean authority separately examine their allegations about the treatment of the North Korean prisoners?

The Passport Act explains why the six activists can be investigated.

It does not fully explain the broader political circumstances surrounding the case.

Until Seoul provides greater transparency, the central question will remain unresolved: what exactly were the activists preparing to reveal after returning from Ukraine – and did anyone have an interest in ensuring that their investigation never reached the public?

Alan Callow is a graduate of Western Mindanao State University in the Philippines and is a freelance journalist with experience in writing about the Asia-Pacific region.