Kang Ui-gu, a former aide in the presidential office, has received an 18-month prison sentence for falsifying a martial law declaration and unlawfully disposing of it after the martial law was lifted on December 3, 2024.
The Supreme Court's first division, led by Justice Cheon Dae-yeop, upheld the lower court's sentence on October 27, confirming the conviction for charges including the creation of false documents, violation of the Presidential Records Management Act, and damage to public documents.
The court noted that the declaration contained information suggesting that a department existed prior to the martial law declaration, which did not actually exist, and acknowledged the intent to commit the crime of falsifying documents.
Kang was indicted for creating a new cover for the martial law declaration on December 6, 2024, and backdating it to December 3, the day of the declaration.
An investigation by the Special Prosecutor's Office revealed that the declaration was enacted without the necessary prior approval from the Prime Minister and relevant ministers, as mandated by Article 82 of the Constitution.
Kang was found to have concealed this procedural flaw and later obtained signatures from former President Yoon Suk Yeol, former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, and former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun to make it appear as though proper procedures had been followed.
Additionally, after receiving concerns from former Prime Minister Han about potential issues if the document's creation became known, Kang was discovered to have shredded the document without authorization after obtaining approval from former President Yoon.
The first-instance court stated, "Despite being a senior official closely assisting the president, Kang attempted to conceal the procedural flaws in the martial law documents," and sentenced him to 18 months in prison.
However, the court found him not guilty of charges related to the use of false documents and the appearance of having undergone a Cabinet review, as it determined that the documents were merely stored in a drawer and not disclosed or used externally.
Both parties appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the lower court's legal reasoning.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.