On May 14, the Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 12-1, presided over by judges Lee Seung-cheol, Jo Jin-goo, and Kim Min-ah, announced that it would separate the arguments and schedule future hearings after acknowledging the recusal request from Yoon's legal team. Yoon, who submitted a notice of absence the previous day, did not attend court.
Before the trial commenced, lawyers for former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun expressed their discontent after the court dismissed their request for a constitutional review of the insurrection court law. Attorney Lee Ha-sang argued, "It is inappropriate for the insurrection court to judge the constitutionality of its own law," and requested time to consider the recusal application.
The court agreed to a five-minute recess, after which Lee submitted the recusal request. Following Kim, former Intelligence Chief Noh Sang-won and former Military Police Commander Kim Yong-gun joined the recusal motion for similar reasons.
As the key defendants continued to file for recusal, the special prosecution team argued that the requests were clearly intended to delay the proceedings and urged the court to issue a summary dismissal. A summary dismissal allows judges to reject frivolous recusal requests that aim to stall the trial.
However, the court stated, "At this stage, it is difficult to conclude that the requests are clearly intended to delay the proceedings," emphasizing the need for procedural clarity. Consequently, the arguments were separated, and the trial for Kim Yong-hyun, Noh Sang-won, and Kim Yong-gun was paused, with all four defendants exiting the courtroom.
After separating the arguments, the special prosecution team read the appeal summary for the remaining defendants. They asserted that the case was not a spontaneous insurrection but rather a calculated conspiracy, claiming that the lower court had misinterpreted facts and legal principles. They highlighted that crucial evidence, including Noh's notebook and memos from Lee Jin-woo and Yeo In-hyung, had not been properly acknowledged by the lower court.
The prosecution noted, "Specific preparations for a state of emergency were confirmed starting around October 2024," stating that the notebook contained over 70 pages of detailed discussions on the arrest and detention of politicians and judges, as well as the selection of personnel for explosive operations. They also pointed out that Yoon had made threatening remarks about shooting anyone who brought him in after mentioning key politicians during a meeting at his residence, indicating the defendants' intent to disrupt the constitutional order.
The prosecution further claimed that evidence from Lee Jin-woo's phone notes clearly indicated attempts to co-opt military commanders through clandestine meetings and provoke North Korean military provocations to create conditions for a state of emergency. They argued that the lower court had excessively strict interpretations regarding the admissibility of evidence and called for severe sentences for the defendants.
In the afternoon session, arguments were presented regarding the high-ranking police defendants, including former Police Chief Jo Ji-ho.
Jo's attorney contended, "The prosecution's account of the insurrection preparations does not mention police involvement even once," asserting that the police were only passively deployed to maintain order on the day of the events and were not part of the insurrection leadership.
The defense further claimed that the police's role in the insurrection process was minimal and that Jo only became aware of the situation on that day. They urged the court to consider Jo's serious health condition, as he is currently suffering from advanced blood cancer, and to acquit him.
In contrast, the prosecution pointed to former Police Investigation Planning Coordinator Yoon Seung-young, stating, "Police officials who have held key investigative positions for years would not have been unaware of the unconstitutional nature of the proclamation," arguing that executing orders for arrests without warrants constituted clear abuse of power and involvement in the insurrection.
Meanwhile, the court allowed live broadcasting of the proceedings, considering the case's significance and public interest. Although there were some objections from the defense, the presiding judge stated that the trial would be broadcasted to balance public interest with the defendants' right to counter-argument, with the condition that filming could be halted if there were concerns about national security or public morals.
With the key defendants filing for recusal, the trial will proceed for now only against Jo Ji-ho, former Seoul Police Chief Kim Bong-sik, former National Assembly Security Chief Mok Hyun-tae, and former Investigation Planning Coordinator Yoon Seung-young.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.