Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-young's team has added charges against military personnel for their alleged involvement in insurrection, but the case is struggling to clarify who knew what and acted accordingly. Eight military commanders previously indicted by Special Prosecutor Jo Eun-seok were acquitted in a first trial, with the court citing insufficient evidence linking the declaration of martial law to individual responsibility for insurrection.
Evidence Gaps Between Meetings and Troop Deployments
According to legal sources, the Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 38-2, led by Judge Jeong Soo-young, acquitted former Army 2nd Armored Brigade Commander Koo Sam-hwe and former Defense Innovation Planning Officer Bang Jeong-hwan, along with six other former military personnel, on charges related to significant insurrection duties on October 30. The special prosecutor had sought prison sentences of seven years for the two and five to seven years for the others.
The court acknowledged that Koo and Bang attended the so-called 'Lotte Burger meeting' with former Intelligence Command Chief Roh Sang-won, and were slated to lead the second investigation team. However, the court found that it remained unclear what plans they received, how well they understood them, and what actions they took in preparation and execution.
The judges noted that the two did not receive any mission-related documents and were not involved in or directed troop mobilization. The troops called up were unaware of their presence. The special prosecutor's evidence, which included their positions and the meeting, was insufficient to conclude that they shared and participated in the insurrection plan.
Responsibility for sending troops to the National Assembly was also divided. The court considered that former Military Police Commander Kim Chang-hak did not receive or share orders to remove lawmakers. Former Special Operations Air Command Chief Kim Se-woon was judged unlikely to have understood the relevance of his training exercises to the martial law.
In contrast, former 707th Special Mission Battalion Commander Kim Hyun-tae received a 12-year prison sentence in August for his role in blocking access to the assembly hall and entrances, actions that supported the goal of paralyzing the National Assembly.
The court concluded that while the same troops were dispatched to the National Assembly, it could not be assumed that the commanders who transported them had the same understanding as those who directed the blockade on-site. Orders from higher-ranking commanders may have been conveyed to subordinates as directives for facility security or deployment preparation. Investigators must clarify what was shared and omitted in this communication process.
Former Counterintelligence Command Chief Jeong Seong-woo's case was also considered, as he requested legal review after receiving orders and raised objections to superiors. His instructions to his subordinates to stay away and return were factored into the acquittal. The distinction between whether his actions after receiving orders constituted active participation or limited execution was crucial.
The insurrection special prosecutor expressed dissatisfaction, stating that the ruling did not adequately consider the positions and responsibilities of high-ranking commanders. They argued that the court should have assessed the circumstances from the time orders were received until the mission's conclusion, but the judges took a narrow view. They are currently reviewing whether to appeal, and the acquittals are not yet final.
Additional Charges and New Findings
The comprehensive special prosecutor has brought additional charges against former Defense Security Command Chief Jo Sung-hyun, former Army Headquarters Legal Affairs Chief Kim Sang-hwan, and former Ground Operations Command Chief Kang Ho-pil, who were not previously indicted by the insurrection special prosecutor. Their actions following the orders to deploy to the National Assembly, troop management, and directives for the internal situation room were scrutinized.
To support these additional charges, there must be grounds for reevaluating facts overlooked in previous investigations or existing evidence. However, there are concerns that the comprehensive special prosecutor's insurrection-related trials are being urged to clarify the connection between defendants' actions and the alleged crimes.
During a pre-trial hearing on October 30 for former National Intelligence Service Director Jo Tae-yong and former NIS Deputy Director Hong Jang-won, the court requested clarification on whether Hong ignored or acted upon a list of targets for arrest he received. In the case of former National Security Office Chief Shin Won-sik, the court demanded further explanation regarding the basis for the alleged intent to disrupt the constitution.
There are actions that need to be verified between receiving the list and attempting to execute arrests, including preparation directives, personnel assignments, and information dissemination. If this process is omitted, the indictment may retain names, positions, and contact details, but the specific roles each individual played in the insurrection will remain unclear.
It cannot be assumed that all participants were aware of the full scope of the martial law after the fact. Different commanders may have received varying information at the same time, and initial orders may have differed from subsequent directives received on-site. Narrowing these differences through time-stamped communications, orders, and troop movement records is essential for reconstructing individual actions in court.
The Importance of Command Orders Over Troop Movements
During the investigation, reports obtained by Aju Business Daily regarding the military command and control system provided clues to reconstructing the actual command structure of the martial law troops. Kim Hyun-seok, who participated in developing the military communication system for an extended period, claimed that some troop movements and command post records did not match, and he heard from unit personnel that they did not use satellite positioning reporting equipment (PRE) as directed by superiors.
However, the mere non-use of equipment cannot definitively indicate intentional concealment or involvement in insurrection. It is necessary to verify whether operational issues or separate directives led to this non-use by comparing access logs, flight records, and situational data from Special Forces and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Matching the communication records from that time can help distinguish the roles of those who issued orders, those who conveyed them, and those who executed them without understanding their intent.
Yoon Suk Yeol's order to deploy troops does not explain the entire command process beneath him. It is crucial to clarify where the regular command structure was excluded, who shared the overall plan, and what orders were conveyed on-site to reconstruct the entire operation from design to execution.
However, this information was offered to the special prosecutor's office early in its establishment but was only formally received and assigned about four months later. Kim was questioned for about four hours on August 22, just before the investigation concluded, but the military investigator Kim Jeong-min stated, "I was not informed of that." Investigators Kim Sang-hoon and Jang Jong-cheol later transferred the materials to another agency for follow-up investigations, but it remains unclear how thoroughly the special prosecutor verified and incorporated this information into their findings.
Despite the comprehensive special prosecutor's investigation, doubts surrounding the command structure of the martial law troops persist, and the court continues to demand clarification of individual roles. The outcomes of the additional charges remain undecided, and there is still potential for further evidence to be presented. However, if the gaps are not filled, the structure of the martial law execution may remain incomplete even after the trial concludes.
Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-young stated at the conclusion of the investigation, "The initial evaluation of the special prosecutor will be made by the court, and ultimately, the people and history will judge it."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.