As major first-instance trials related to insurrection come to a close, court judgments regarding the evidentiary value of Noh Sang-won's notebook are diverging. Depending on whether the contents of the notebook are recognized, the timeline for preparations for emergency martial law shifts significantly from December 1, 2024, to 2023, becoming a key issue in the appeal of former President Yoon Suk Yeol's insurrection leadership case.
According to legal sources on June 30, the Central District Court in Seoul reached different conclusions regarding the same notebook belonging to former intelligence chief Noh Sang-won. Consequently, assessments of the timeline for emergency martial law preparations and the existence of premeditated conspiracy vary from case to case.
The 25th Criminal Division of the Central District Court, which presided over the first trial of former President Yoon's insurrection leadership charges, did not recognize the evidentiary value of the notebook. The court determined that it was difficult to specify the time of writing, the handwriting was poor, and if it were crucial evidence of long-term martial law preparations, it would likely have been easily discovered by investigators if it were left on the desk at his mother's residence.
Based on this, the court concluded that Yoon directed former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun to prepare for emergency martial law around December 1, 2024, just two days before the declaration.
In the first trial concerning general treason charges against Yoon and others, the court also did not recognize the notebook's evidentiary value. However, based on other evidence, it concluded that Kim had been discussing preparations with Noh since September 2024 regarding the tasks of the intelligence command following the declaration of emergency martial law, acknowledging a timeline approximately three months earlier than in the insurrection leadership case.
Conversely, the 33rd Criminal Division of the Central District Court, presided over by Judge Lee Jin-gwan, recognized the evidentiary value of the notebook in the case against former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae for significant involvement in insurrection. The court stated, "The December 3 insurrection was not a spur-of-the-moment decision but had been prepared at least since 2023."
The court explained that Noh's handwriting might appear poor because he was taking notes on Kim's statements in real-time. Additionally, the fact that the notebook was found at his mother's residence could indicate that they did not anticipate failure due to the nature of a coup, and such circumstances alone do not negate its evidentiary value.
Furthermore, the court determined that the instructions regarding travel bans and detention facility operations noted in the notebook aligned with directives actually conveyed to Park during the martial law period.
These conflicting judgments are expected to be a point of contention in the appeal of Yoon's insurrection leadership case. During the first hearing of the resumed appeal on June 25, the special prosecutor's team argued that the evidentiary value of Noh's notebook should be recognized, asserting that preparations for emergency martial law began before October 2023. In contrast, Yoon's defense team contended that they were relying on materials deemed inadmissible as evidence.
The comprehensive special prosecutor's team also views Noh's notebook as key evidence of premeditated conspiracy for emergency martial law. The team is conducting on-site verifications at locations such as Yeonpyeong Island and the Second Hanawon, as well as facilities of the Capital Defense Command, to establish connections between the notebook's contents and the actual preparations for emergency martial law, including the circumstances of its creation and any directives from superiors.
Legal experts anticipate that the appeal may provide some clarity on the standards for assessing the evidentiary value of Noh's notebook and the timeline for emergency martial law preparations. Since the credibility and evidentiary value of evidence are determined at the court's discretion, there is a possibility that conclusions may continue to differ from case to case.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.