The second comprehensive special prosecutor team, led by Kwon Chang-young, has indicted former President Yoon Suk Yeol and former National Security Director Shin Won-sik for allegedly attempting to justify martial law on December 3. The prosecutor's office applied the charge of important duties related to insurrection to Shin, while determining that his level of involvement warranted a non-custodial indictment, differentiating his responsibility from that of his co-defendant, Kim Tae-hyo.
On August 12, the special prosecutor's office indicted Yoon for abuse of power and Shin for important duties related to insurrection and abuse of power, both without detention.
Yoon is accused of directing the dissemination of messages justifying martial law to key allies, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and the European Union, from December 3 to the following day. The special prosecutor's office believes Yoon's orders were communicated through Shin and Kim to the presidential office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The special prosecutor's office determined that Shin, in collusion with Yoon and Kim, disseminated messages justifying martial law to certain countries, which they classified as actions that went beyond mere abuse of power and constituted participation in insurrection. They concluded that Shin played a crucial role in securing the legitimacy of the insurrection and garnering external support.
However, the treatment of Shin's case differed from that of Kim, who was arrested and indicted on July 29 for the same charges. While Shin faced similar allegations, the special prosecutor's office deemed his level of involvement to be relatively lighter than Kim's, leading to a non-custodial indictment. This indicates that while both were involved in the same criminal structure, their specific roles and responsibilities were viewed as distinct.
Yoon was not separately charged with important duties related to insurrection, as he is already facing trial for being the leader of the insurrection in connection with martial law. Therefore, only the abuse of power charge was applied in this case.
This indictment is noteworthy as it considers actions taken to justify martial law after its repeal as an extension of the insurrection. The special prosecutor's office views the end of the insurrection not as the repeal of martial law on December 4, 2024, but rather as the passage of the impeachment motion against Yoon on December 14 of the same year. Consequently, actions taken to communicate the legitimacy of martial law after its declaration are included under the charge of important duties related to insurrection.
This perspective differs from that of the special prosecutor team, led by Jo Eun-seok, which argues that the repeal of martial law should be seen as the end of the insurrection. Future trials are expected to address the specifics of Shin's involvement and whether actions taken to justify martial law after its repeal can be classified as insurrection.
The comprehensive special prosecutor has requested the court to consolidate the cases of Yoon and Shin with that of Kim, which has already been submitted for trial. This is interpreted as an effort to prove the process of disseminating the martial law justification messages and the collusion among the three in a single trial.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.