Yoon Suk Yeol, the former president of South Korea, and Shin Won-sik, the former head of the National Security Office, were indicted by the second special prosecutor's team led by Kwon Chang-young for allegedly justifying the declaration of martial law to key allied nations shortly after it was announced on December 3. During their first court hearing on November 13 at the Seoul Central District Court, they both denied all charges and asserted their innocence.
The court, presided over by judges Jang Seong-jin, Jeong Soo-young, and Choi Yeong-gak, heard the case regarding abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights. Yoon's legal team argued, "The essence of this case is diplomatic crisis management," and rejected all allegations.
Yoon's defense emphasized that immediately after the martial law declaration, foreign governments and the diplomatic corps in South Korea sought to understand the situation and the government's position accurately. They stated, "Maintaining trust with allies, such as the U.S.-South Korea alliance, and confirming the continuity of foreign policy and security is an essential duty of the president representing the nation under Article 66 of the Constitution."
They further contended, "Regardless of the evaluation of martial law, communicating with allied nations for national interests cannot be a crime," and described the explanation of positions through diplomatic channels as a normal operation of the command structure.
Regarding specific directives, the defense acknowledged that Yoon instructed Kim Tae-hyo, the former first deputy director of the National Security Office, to explain the purpose of a statement to the U.S. ambassador but claimed that no specific expressions were designated and that there was no directive to convey messages to four countries, including the UK, Japan, and Australia.
They added that the content of the messages was merely a summary of the statement and contained no falsehoods, asserting that conveying the president's position is a fundamental duty of diplomats, thus negating the basis for abuse of power.
Yoon also directly questioned the special prosecutor's assertion that the end of insurrection was marked by the National Assembly's approval of the impeachment motion on December 14, 2024. He stated, "Immediately after the National Assembly's resolution to lift martial law at 1:01 a.m., the Minister of National Defense ordered commanders to withdraw troops, and even before the Cabinet meeting, he instructed to end the martial law situation and send home standby personnel. It is difficult to understand how insurrection could persist after martial law was completely lifted."
Shin's defense team also denied all charges related to important duties during insurrection and abuse of power. Shin's lawyer explained, "The first thing the defendant said to the president after the Cabinet meeting on the day of the martial law declaration was, 'What kind of martial law are you talking about? Cancel it immediately.' He opposed martial law in front of the president and instructed that employees summoned for emergency meetings should be sent home."
In response to the special prosecutor's claim that they attempted to defend the state of insurrection through U.S. support, Shin's defense countered, "That night, I rejected multiple requests for calls from Jake Sullivan, the White House National Security Advisor, saying, 'I cannot understand or accept martial law, so what could I possibly say to the U.S.?'
Shin's team also addressed the special prosecutor's previous statement that he directed the explanation to four countries, including Australia, after receiving a call from Yoon the day after the martial law declaration, stating, "There is no record of a call with the president at that time, and we are correcting the misunderstanding based on the statements of subordinate employees."
Conversely, the special prosecutor argued that their actions constituted abuse of power and insurrection to justify an unconstitutional and illegal martial law. They stated, "By having the president and the head of the National Security Office convey distorted messages to foreign officials, they compelled them to perform duties they were not obligated to do," and particularly noted that Shin was aware of the unconstitutionality of the martial law declaration but conspired with Yoon and Kim to secure the legitimacy of the insurrection.
The court requested the special prosecutor to supplement the indictment, stating, "It is necessary to clearly specify at what point Shin recognized the specific purpose of violating the Constitution."
The judges also remarked, "The content of the first message appears to consist of simple sentences without any distortion of facts. There seems to be an unavoidable aspect to explaining the purpose to allied nations during martial law, so please specify where it exceeds normal diplomatic duties."
Meanwhile, during witness testimony, Lee Chung-myeon, the former diplomatic secretary of the National Security Office, testified about the circumstances surrounding the directives. He stated, "There was a prevailing atmosphere that presidential directives should naturally be implemented within the presidential office," and when he questioned whether such directives should be conveyed to countries like Australia and New Zealand, Shin responded in the sense of 'implement it.'
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.