Kim Tae-hyo Denies Justifying Martial Law in First Trial

Kim Tae-hyo, the former first deputy director of the National Security Office, who was indicted for allegedly justifying martial law to allied countries shortly after its declaration on December 3, denied all charges during his first trial. His defense team argued that he was merely carrying out normal diplomatic communication under the direction of former President Yoon Suk Yeol and had no intention of maintaining or strengthening a state of rebellion.

The 38-2 Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court held the first preparatory hearing for Kim's case on charges of important duties in rebellion and abuse of power on August 26. Kim did not attend the hearing, as defendants are not required to be present.

Kim's attorney stated, "We deny all allegations and argue that it is difficult to view the actions as fulfilling former President Yoon's orders with the intent to maintain a state of rebellion."

The second comprehensive special prosecutor team, led by Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-young, reported that former President Yoon instructed Kim to explain the background and justification of the martial law to allied countries, including the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom, from 10:54 PM on December 3, 2024, until the early hours of the following day.

At that time, former President Yoon conveyed that the measure was taken to protect liberal democracy, stating it was a response to the National Assembly paralyzing the executive branch and attempting to undermine constitutional order, and he directed that the martial law announcement be translated and sent.

Kim's defense countered that he was unaware of the background and intent of the martial law declaration when he received the instructions, claiming that Yoon explained this to him more than 10 hours after the declaration, around 9 AM on December 4.

The attorney emphasized, "The crime of important duties in rebellion applies only when related to significant duties during a riot. Communicating a message that foreign policy remains unchanged to allied countries is a normal diplomatic act." He added that there was no connection to riots involving the closure of the National Assembly or mobilization of troops.

Kim also denied the charge of abuse of power for allegedly using Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials to explain the background and significance of the martial law declaration to the U.S., Japan, the U.K., and the European Union after the martial law was lifted. His team argued that while the first deputy director of the National Security Office can supervise officials in the diplomatic secretary's office, he does not have direct authority over Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials and did not give direct orders.

In contrast, the special prosecutor's office believes Kim directed Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials to convey the justification for martial law, thus assigning them tasks outside their obligations.

The special prosecutor's office also announced plans to amend the indictment to apply the charge of important duties in rebellion to actions taken after the martial law was lifted. They argue that the rebellion charge encompasses multiple actions as a single crime, asserting that acts of rebellion continued from the lifting of martial law until the National Assembly voted on the impeachment motion against former President Yoon on December 14, 2024.

This approach extends the timeframe of the alleged offenses beyond the special prosecutor team's earlier assessment, which viewed the lifting of martial law as the end of the rebellion.

The court ordered the special prosecutor to submit an application for the amendment of the indictment by September 11 and directed Kim's defense team to provide their opinions on the charges and evidence. The next preparatory hearing is scheduled for September 16 at 4 PM.