Joo Tae-yong, the former chief of the National Intelligence Service, was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison in an appeals court, a year longer than his initial sentence. He was convicted of charges including dereliction of duty, violations of the National Intelligence Service Act, and evidence destruction related to his involvement in the political landscape following the declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024.
On August 19, the Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 1, led by Judge Yoon Seong-sik, handed down the sentence, which also includes a 2-year and 6-month disqualification from public office. The prosecution had previously sought a 7-year sentence for Joo.
The appeals court overturned several key charges that had been deemed not guilty in the initial trial, particularly the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act's prohibition against political involvement.
The court found that Joo unlawfully intervened in politics by holding a press conference shortly after the martial law declaration, claiming that the president had not ordered the arrest of politicians, and by sending messages to employees of the National Intelligence Service and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that the claims made by former Deputy Director Hong Jang-won were false.
The court concluded that Joo knowingly spread false information with the political motive of preventing the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk-yeol, as Hong's statements were central to the impeachment proceedings. This constituted an improper use of his authority to manipulate public opinion.
Additionally, charges of perjury and evidence destruction, which had resulted in a not guilty verdict in the first trial, were mostly found to be guilty in the appeals court. The court ruled that Joo conspired with former Presidential Security Service Chief Park Jong-jun to delete information related to discussions about the arrest of key politicians, which constituted evidence destruction. Statements made in the National Assembly and the Constitutional Court, claiming he had never received reports of arrest orders from Hong or seen the martial law declaration, were also deemed false.
However, the court reversed the initial guilty verdict regarding the denial of receiving martial law-related documents, stating that the first trial had misinterpreted the nature of the documents as 'general documents' rather than focusing on the specific 'martial law-related directive documents' at the heart of the charges, violating the principle of legality.
Meanwhile, the charge of dereliction of duty, which was a key allegation, was upheld as not guilty, similar to the first trial. This charge involved failing to promptly inform the National Assembly about the attempted arrests reported by Hong on the day of the martial law declaration. The court explained that even if Joo was aware of the attempted arrests, he needed to verify additional information regarding the reasons and methods of the arrests, making it difficult to establish a legal obligation for reporting.
The allegation that Joo had politically intervened by providing closed-circuit television footage from the National Intelligence Service only to the ruling party was also dismissed, as the court found no evidence of prior discussions with the ruling party and deemed it a legitimate response to a request for parliamentary materials.
The court emphasized that the head of the National Intelligence Service, possessing significant intelligence capabilities, is required to maintain a higher standard of political neutrality and fairness. It criticized Joo for using his position and authority to destroy evidence and obstruct the truth, significantly betraying the public's trust in the National Intelligence Service.
Joo's legal team has not commented on the appeals court's ruling, but if they choose to appeal, the case will proceed to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.