In the appeal trial related to the December 3 martial law case, Kim Yong-hyun, former Minister of National Defense, denied the charges of insurrection during his final argument. He asserted that there was no intention to incapacitate the National Assembly for an extended period and that the military deployment did not constitute the riot required for insurrection.
The Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 12-1, presided over by judges Lee Seung-cheol, Cho Jin-goo, and Kim Min-ah, held a hearing on November 3 involving Yoon Suk Yeol, former president, and Kim Yong-hyun, among others, who face charges of insurrection leadership. The final arguments from Kim's defense team were presented during this session.
The defense argued, "The determination of the martial law's unconstitutionality and the establishment of insurrection are separate issues," insisting that both the intent to disrupt the constitution and the occurrence of a riot must be proven. They contended that the lower court inferred the establishment of insurrection based on the martial law's unconstitutionality and illegality.
The defense emphasized that the martial law was a short-term measure to inform the public of a government paralysis situation and that complying with the National Assembly's demand for its termination was planned from the outset. They claimed there was no intention to render the National Assembly non-functional for an extended period.
They also argued that the military's mission in the National Assembly was to secure facilities and maintain vigilance. The term "blockade" used by commanders referred solely to military access control and did not imply an intention to obstruct discussions and decisions in the National Assembly. They pointed out that the National Assembly had indeed passed a resolution demanding the termination of martial law, and the military was withdrawn afterward, indicating that no force was exercised to the extent of constituting a riot.
The defense contested the lower court's ruling regarding the lack of legal review of the proclamation. They claimed that Yoon Suk Yeol, who had served as both prosecutor and Attorney General, directly reviewed the proclamation and removed the curfew clause, asserting that Kim, a military veteran, trusted the president's constitutional judgment.
They also refuted claims linking drone operations to the conditions of martial law, stating that these operations were part of psychological warfare aimed at countering North Korean balloon launches and were conducted through the Joint Chiefs of Staff's command structure. They denied any connection between the preparation for martial law and the operations, asserting that preparations began only after the operations were halted.
The defense continued to challenge the credibility of testimonies regarding the preparations for martial law. They argued that linking military personnel and intelligence agency personnel documents to martial law preparations was speculative and that the lower court's acknowledgment of preparation signs while rejecting the relevance of individual meetings and statements was contradictory.
They also raised issues regarding the investigation and prosecution procedures, arguing that the same prosecutor's involvement from investigation to indictment and prosecution violated the separation of investigation and prosecution regulations. They noted that Kim had coordinated his attendance and voluntarily appeared, yet was urgently arrested, suggesting there was ample time to obtain a warrant. The defense called for the dismissal of charges as a primary request and asserted innocence as a secondary plea.
Conversely, the special prosecutor's team for insurrection, led by Cho Eun-seok, requested life imprisonment during the prosecution's closing arguments on October 29, asserting that Kim had played a leading role in preparing for martial law and drafting the proclamation. They pointed out that Kim had not desired an early termination of martial law, despite framing it as a short-term warning measure.
Kim was sentenced to 30 years in prison in the first trial. The special prosecutor's team has requested life imprisonment in the appeal trial, the same sentence sought in the first trial for Yoon Suk Yeol, for whom the death penalty was requested.
The court plans to conclude arguments after hearing the defendants' final statements on November 5 and will set a date for the ruling.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.