The second special prosecutor team, led by Kwon Chang-young, faced repeated demands from the court to clarify the criminal acts and evidence in the cases they indicted. Concerns are growing over whether there was sufficient preparation for the trial to support the indictments, as the court pointed out issues ranging from the wording of the indictment to the organization of applicable laws and evidence.
On October 19, during a session at the Seoul Central District Court, the judges requested additional information from the special prosecutor regarding the cases involving former Defense Ministry spokesperson Jeon Ha-kyu and former Army Legal Affairs Office head Kim Sang-hwan related to insurrection preparation, as well as allegations concerning the relocation of the presidential residence involving Kim Geon-hee and People Power Party lawmaker Yoon Han-hong.
"Time must be recorded to assess intent of actions"
In the case of the former spokesperson, the court noted discrepancies between the indictment and the special prosecutor's explanation regarding the individuals involved in the orders. The Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 37-3, presided over by judges Ryu Chang-seong, Jang Seong-hoon, and Oh Chang-seop, questioned the claim that Jeon directed the dissemination of the martial law proclamation to personnel within the public relations strategy office, including Park An-soo.
The special prosecutor clarified that Park An-soo, the former martial law commander, was present, implying that the statement was more of a discussion than a directive. The court responded, "Then the wording does not match," and requested a revision. The indictment and courtroom explanations did not align regarding who did what.
The timing of attempts to contact the presidential office's public relations chief was also omitted. The court remarked, "Shouldn't the time be recorded to specify the actions and determine the intent behind them?" It also ordered the special prosecutor to clarify the specific circumstances and evidence indicating an awareness of the constitutional disruption purpose at the time of the proclamation's dissemination.
In the case involving Kim, the court demanded clarity on the scope of the actions considered punishable. The Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 37-1, presided over by judges Jang Seong-hoon, Oh Chang-seop, and Ryu Chang-seong, sought clarification on whether the actions of not providing legal advice on the illegality of the emergency martial law and boarding the "martial law bus" were viewed as separate crimes or if the boarding itself was the issue. The court also pointed out inconsistencies in the sequence of statements regarding the bus boarding and the purpose of forming the martial law command.
Both defendants denied the charges. Jeon's defense argued that his involvement was limited to proofreading and other practical tasks, while Kim's defense contended that the allegations of participation in any riot were unclear.
The special prosecutor clarified that Park An-soo, the former martial law commander, was present, implying that the statement was more of a discussion than a directive. The court responded, "Then the wording does not match," and requested a revision. The indictment and courtroom explanations did not align regarding who did what.
The timing of attempts to contact the presidential office's public relations chief was also omitted. The court remarked, "Shouldn't the time be recorded to specify the actions and determine the intent behind them?" It also ordered the special prosecutor to clarify the specific circumstances and evidence indicating an awareness of the constitutional disruption purpose at the time of the proclamation's dissemination.
In the case involving Kim, the court demanded clarity on the scope of the actions considered punishable. The Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 37-1, presided over by judges Jang Seong-hoon, Oh Chang-seop, and Ryu Chang-seong, sought clarification on whether the actions of not providing legal advice on the illegality of the emergency martial law and boarding the "martial law bus" were viewed as separate crimes or if the boarding itself was the issue. The court also pointed out inconsistencies in the sequence of statements regarding the bus boarding and the purpose of forming the martial law command.
Both defendants denied the charges. Jeon's defense argued that his involvement was limited to proofreading and other practical tasks, while Kim's defense contended that the allegations of participation in any riot were unclear.
Evidence list needs to specify proof purpose, not just review
In the case concerning the allegations of relocating the presidential residence, it appeared that previous requests for clarification had not been addressed. The Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 22, presided over by Judge Jo Hyung-woo, had previously instructed the special prosecutor to consider applying Article 33 of the Criminal Act regarding the establishment of accomplice liability for Kim Geon-hee's abuse of authority, but noted that the applicable laws had not been supplemented by the current date and ordered completion by the next session.
The evidence list included items that were only labeled as "indictment facts." When the special prosecutor stated they would reflect necessary parts after review, the court retorted, "It should be recorded, not just reviewed. How can you only write four characters for the indictment facts?" This was to ensure that the submitted evidence could be linked to specific charges.
The court also raised questions about the legal application concerning the tax invoice related to 21gram, the construction company for the presidential residence, stating that it differed from typical cases. The special prosecutor indicated they would provide legal opinions if necessary after further review.
Earlier, in the case involving four People Power Party lawmakers accused of obstructing special public duty, issues were also raised regarding the omission of threats in the documentation and the distinction between individual and joint culpability. This pattern of demands for specificity in actions and legal provisions and evidence organization has recurred.
The court's observations do not necessarily indicate a failure of the charges. However, the questions posed by the judges reflect the fundamental aspects of the indictment: "Who committed what criminal acts, and how will it be proven?" The special prosecutor now faces the task of supplementing the indictment and evidence list before explaining their reasoning in court.
* This article has been translated by AI.
The evidence list included items that were only labeled as "indictment facts." When the special prosecutor stated they would reflect necessary parts after review, the court retorted, "It should be recorded, not just reviewed. How can you only write four characters for the indictment facts?" This was to ensure that the submitted evidence could be linked to specific charges.
The court also raised questions about the legal application concerning the tax invoice related to 21gram, the construction company for the presidential residence, stating that it differed from typical cases. The special prosecutor indicated they would provide legal opinions if necessary after further review.
Earlier, in the case involving four People Power Party lawmakers accused of obstructing special public duty, issues were also raised regarding the omission of threats in the documentation and the distinction between individual and joint culpability. This pattern of demands for specificity in actions and legal provisions and evidence organization has recurred.
The court's observations do not necessarily indicate a failure of the charges. However, the questions posed by the judges reflect the fundamental aspects of the indictment: "Who committed what criminal acts, and how will it be proven?" The special prosecutor now faces the task of supplementing the indictment and evidence list before explaining their reasoning in court.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.