Jo Tae-yong, the former head of the National Intelligence Service, is set to receive a verdict on charges of dereliction of duty and violating the National Intelligence Service Act for failing to report the planned emergency martial law declaration to the National Assembly.
According to legal sources, the Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 32, led by Judge Ryu Kyung-jin, will hold the first-instance verdict hearing on May 21 for Jo, who has been indicted and detained since last November.
Jo was arrested by the special prosecutor's team led by Cho Eun-seok for allegedly failing to fulfill his duties as the head of the National Intelligence Service during the emergency martial law declared on December 3, 2024.
The special prosecutor's team determined that Jo neglected his responsibilities by not informing the National Assembly about former President Yoon Suk-yeol's plans for the martial law declaration, despite receiving reports from former NIS Deputy Director Hong Jang-won that the military was dispatched to arrest key political figures, including Lee Jae-myung and Han Dong-hoon.
Additionally, after the martial law was lifted, Jo is accused of providing closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage of Hong's movements only to the ruling People Power Party while withholding similar footage of his own movements from the opposition Democratic Party, violating the prohibition against political involvement as stipulated in the National Intelligence Service Act.
Jo also faces charges of perjury for allegedly providing false testimony to the National Assembly and the Constitutional Court, as well as submitting false responses to the National Assembly's investigation into the martial law allegations. Furthermore, he is accused of participating in the destruction of evidence related to the deletion of information from the secure phone of former President Yoon and Deputy Director Hong.
During the closing arguments held on April 3, the special prosecutor's team requested a seven-year prison sentence for Jo, stating, "The defendant was aware of the unconstitutional and illegal martial law declaration plans by the president but completely ignored his constitutional duty to prevent or report it to the National Assembly." They emphasized that the head of a national intelligence agency facilitating a conspiracy to commit insurrection and attempting to destroy evidence afterward is a serious offense.
In contrast, Jo's defense team firmly denied all charges throughout the trial, asserting his innocence. They argued that Jo was not in a position to be fully aware of the president's martial law declaration plans and that even if he had known, he lacked the authority to physically or legally prevent the president's decision to mobilize the military. They contended that the NIS itself was not directly involved in executing the martial law and that the submission of CCTV footage was merely a routine administrative task without any political intent to assist a specific party. They also maintained that the deletion of secure phone information was part of the agency's security protocols, not an act of evidence destruction.
The upcoming verdict for Jo is expected to establish legal standards regarding the role of intelligence leaders in national crises. Legal experts suggest that if Jo's testimony during the Constitutional Court impeachment trial is ruled as perjury, it could serve as strong evidence supporting the illegality of former President Yoon's martial law declaration process.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.