The second comprehensive special prosecutor team, led by Kwon Chang-young, is facing repeated demands from the court to clarify the criminal acts and evidence in the cases they have indicted. Issues such as omitted legal provisions and inadequate evidence organization have raised questions about whether the prosecution's preparations for trial are sufficient to support their indictments.
According to legal sources on October 18, the key issues in the ongoing comprehensive special prosecutor cases at the Seoul Central District Court revolve around the specification of charges, organization of evidence by allegation, and the basis for overturning previous special prosecutor decisions.
A notable example is the case involving People Power Party lawmakers Na Kyung-won, Kim Gi-hyeon, Yoon Sang-hyun, and Kwon Young-jin, accused of obstructing official duties. During the first trial preparation session on October 13, the court, presided over by Judge Baek Dae-hyun, stated, "There are significant flaws in the charges that cannot be overlooked."
The special prosecutor's office charged the lawmakers with forming a human wall to obstruct the execution of an arrest warrant for former President Yoon Suk Yeol. However, the indictment did not specify actions that would constitute obstruction of official duties, such as violence or threats, and only cited Article 144, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, which pertains to aggravated punishment.
When the special prosecutor explained that they viewed the obstruction as an exercise of physical force, the court questioned, "Why was that not included in the indictment?" There were also concerns raised about the inconsistency between the explanation of individual culpability and the intent of the indictment.
Simply adding legal provisions is not sufficient. It is essential to clarify who committed acts of violence or threats and whether the offenses were individual or collective to define the scope of the court's judgment and the defendants' defense.
Similar issues have emerged in insurrection cases. In the case of Cho Sung-hyun, the former commander of the 1st Guard Brigade of the Capital Defense Command, the court has demanded clarification on the timing of the intent to disrupt the constitution and the directives for entering the National Assembly. In cases involving former Fire Chief Heo Seok-gon and others, there have been calls to specify where in the indictment the intent to disrupt the constitution by latecomers is documented.
Explaining the illegality of martial law and specifying the awareness, actions, and responsibilities of each defendant are separate matters. The court's demand questions whether the entire investigation has been sufficiently detailed into individual criminal facts.
Poor evidence management has led to delays in the trial. The Criminal Division 32, handling the cases of former Presidential Office Secretary for Public Discipline Lee Si-won and others, pointed out on October 15 that the request to separate evidence lists by charges of abuse of authority and disclosure of official secrets had not been fulfilled. The court stated, "We cannot proceed with the trial under these circumstances," and scheduled an additional preparation session.
In the case involving allegations of covering up the Deutsche Motors investigation, discrepancies between the evidence list and records have become problematic. In the case concerning the 'justification message for martial law' involving former President Yoon, the defense was unable to secure records by the first preparation session, preventing them from confirming the acknowledgment of the charges.
If the evidence supporting each allegation is not organized, it delays the confirmation of opinions on the evidence and the investigation process. The burden of not organizing this at the indictment stage carries over to the courtroom, delaying substantive hearings.
The background to these issues points to a concentrated approach to handling cases just before the conclusion of the investigation. The comprehensive special prosecutor's office adopted a 'heavy tail' strategy, focusing on indictments in the final stages of their 180-day investigation. Out of 28 total indictments, 22 were processed in the last two weeks before the conclusion.
While concentrated indictments do not inherently indicate deficiencies, the recurring issues with the specification of elements and evidence organization across multiple cases raise doubts about whether there was sufficient internal verification from the decision to indict through to the drafting of the indictment and the transfer of records for trial. The exact causes need to be examined in terms of workload distribution and review procedures, but these issues cannot be easily explained as mere typographical errors.
Cases that overturn previous special prosecutor decisions also carry the burden of explaining the basis for their indictments. The case against the People Power Party lawmakers was dismissed by the Insurrection Special Prosecutor, and the case against former Commander Cho was not filed. Kang Ho-pil, the former commander of the Ground Operations Command, has raised questions about the reasons for changing previous judgments and whether the special prosecutor followed proper consultation procedures.
While conclusions can change based on new evidence or legal interpretations, it must be clear how the previously deemed insufficient aspects of the investigation have been supplemented. As demands for clarification of the charges continue, the credibility of the re-investigation and indictments is also under scrutiny.
This stands in stark contrast to the confidence publicly expressed by the special prosecutor's office. Kwon stated at the launch of the investigation, "We will investigate solely in accordance with the direction indicated by the law and evidence." During the final investigation briefing on August 24, he remarked, "As long as the enemies have the capacity and will, this war has not ended; I believe it has just begun," and proposed the establishment of a permanent special investigation headquarters.
Kim Ji-mi, the special prosecutor's deputy, also mentioned in an April YouTube broadcast that a phrase reading 'The eagle does not catch flies' is displayed in Kwon's office.
Now, the special prosecutor, who emphasized their investigative determination, must first explain how they will prove the crimes they have indicted in court. A special prosecutor official recently stated in a broadcast report, "We plan to prepare thoroughly for the next trial in response to the court's comments."
The second trial preparation session for the cases involving former Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung and former Chief of the Planning and Coordination Bureau of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Jeon Mu-gon is scheduled for 2 p.m. on the 23rd. The first trial for the cases involving former Coast Guard Commissioner Kim Jong-wook and former Coast Guard Planning and Coordination Officer Ahn Seong-sik is set for next month on the 3rd.
The first indictment case of the comprehensive special prosecutor, concerning the illegal diversion of the official residence relocation budget, is scheduled for sentencing at 10:30 a.m. on the 27th of next month. The special prosecutor has sought a four-year prison sentence for former Presidential Office Chief of Staff Kim Dae-ki, three years and six months for former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min and former Presidential Office Administrative Secretary Kim O-jin, and two years and six months for former Chief of Staff Yoon Jae-soon. Kim's defense argues that the budget adjustments were made without personal gain or favoritism and maintains his innocence.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.