Yoon Suk Yeol and Kim Yong-hyun, along with six others, denied charges of insurrection during the final arguments of their appeal regarding the December 3 martial law incident. Yoon's defense emphasized that their actions were intended to inform the public of a national crisis, while Kim's team rejected allegations of ordering the evacuation of lawmakers and the arrest of politicians, calling for either dismissal of charges or a not guilty verdict.
The Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 12-1, presided over by judges Lee Seung-cheol, Jo Jin-goo, and Kim Min-a, held the appeal hearing on November 3. The defense's final arguments for Kim concluded in the afternoon, followed by Yoon's team.
Yoon's attorney, Lee Yoon-ho, argued that meetings with military commanders and the issuance of military personnel documents should not be interpreted as evidence of long-term preparations for martial law. He described these meetings as routine morale-boosting gatherings and stated that the personnel documents were part of standard operational procedures. He also refuted claims linking former Defense Intelligence Command chief Noh Sang-won's notebook to Yoon.
The credibility of witness statements was also contested. Lee emphasized that the court should rely on objective records, such as CCTV footage and secure phone call logs, rather than witness testimonies that contradict these records.
Kim's attorney, Kim Gye-ri, argued that the government sought to inform the public of a crisis due to the opposition's impeachment efforts and budget cuts, framing the martial law as a 'public appeal type' that could not coexist with the intent to disrupt the constitution. She pointed out that the military was deployed minimally after the martial law was declared and that the announcement was made via a live television address, arguing against claims of a 'loyalty coup' aimed at seizing control of the National Assembly.
Kim's defense team previously stated that the constitutionality of the martial law and the establishment of insurrection charges are separate issues, asserting that there was no intention to incapacitate the National Assembly for an extended period.
The significance of military deployment to the National Assembly and the communication of a list of politicians was also debated. They contended that the order given to former Special Forces commander Kwak Jong-geun was to extract military personnel, not lawmakers, and that Yeo In-hyung, former head of the Counterintelligence Command, was instructed only to assess the situation of politicians, not to arrest them. They emphasized that the military's mission was to secure facilities and maintain vigilance, not to obstruct legislative decisions.
The defense explained that the purpose of sending troops to the Election Commission was for security checks and facility protection, not for server removal. They also refuted claims that drone operations were intended to provoke North Korean provocations to create conditions for martial law.
Concerns were raised about the legality of the investigation and prosecution process. The defense argued that having the same prosecutor involved from investigation to indictment and trial violated regulations separating these processes. They noted that Kim had coordinated his attendance and voluntarily appeared, suggesting there was ample time to obtain a warrant.
The defense appealed to the court to dismiss the charges or, if not accepted, to deliver a not guilty verdict. They concluded by emphasizing that the special prosecutor's call for severe punishment, referencing former Presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, should not set a precedent for punishing one individual based on historical context.
In contrast, the special prosecutor's team, led by Jo Eun-seok, sought the death penalty for Yoon and life imprisonment for Kim, asserting that Kim played a leading role in preparing for martial law and drafting the proclamation, while also criticizing claims that the martial law was merely a short-term warning.
The first trial concluded that Yoon's actions in sending troops to the National Assembly met the criteria for insurrection charges, resulting in a life sentence for Yoon and a 30-year sentence for Kim.
The court plans to hear the remaining final arguments and the defendants' final statements on November 5, after which it will conclude the proceedings and set a date for the verdict.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.