Courts are repeatedly faulting cases brought by the second comprehensive special counsel team, led by Special Counsel Kwon Chang-young, for unclear charges and inadequate evidence lists. The bench hearing allegations that former first lady Kim Keon-hee and People Power Party lawmaker Yoon Han-hong improperly intervened in the relocation of the presidential residence questioned the charges the special counsel applied. The bench hearing insurrection-related charges against Kim Sang-hwan, former head of the Army Headquarters legal affairs office, said the wording of the indictment was awkward.
The Seoul Central District Court's 22nd criminal division, presided over by Chief Judge Cho Hyung-woo, held a second pretrial hearing on the 19th on charges against Kim including violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes through brokerage-related bribery and abuse of authority to obstruct the exercise of rights, and against Yoon including abuse of authority and violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.
The special counsel team applied charges under the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, concluding that 21gram Chief Executive Kim Tae-young borrowed the names of Wondam Construction and other firms to sign construction contracts during work on the residence and failed to issue tax invoices.
"We have not seen this provision applied in cases like this," the bench said. "In our experience, false tax invoices typically involve cases where documents alone were created to evade taxes while services were provided. We will look into it, but we doubt it will hold up. This seems somewhat different." The special counsel replied that it had reviewed the matter before filing the indictment, adding that the provision was legally necessary because the state ends up imposing taxes on the wrong company, which then pays them, and that it would submit an opinion if required.
The bench also said the special counsel's explanation of its evidence list was inadequate. When the team said it would review the matter and reflect what was needed, the bench stressed: "It is not a matter of review, it must be written down. It has to be clear enough to tell which item each piece relates to. Please supplement it with reference details."
The Seoul Central District Court's 37-1 criminal division, with Chief Judges Jang Sung-hoon, Oh Chang-seop and Ryu Chang-sung, told the special counsel team at the first trial hearing that day for Kim Sang-hwan, former head of the Army Headquarters legal affairs office, that the indictment's wording about boarding a martial law bus was awkward.
"The sentence saying he boarded the bus, and that the bus departed from and returned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to form the martial law command, is awkward," the bench said. "It would be easier to understand if the boarding came first and the circumstances followed. 'To form the martial law command' appears to be the main charge, but the sequence does not seem to match."
Criticism of thin indictments has mounted in trials of cases brought by the second comprehensive special counsel team. On the 13th, the Seoul Central District Court's 35th criminal division, presided over by Chief Judge Baek Dae-hyun, which is hearing charges of special obstruction of official duties against People Power Party lawmakers, said at the first pretrial hearing: "There are serious defects in the charges that we cannot avoid pointing out."
People Power Party lawmakers Na Kyung-won, Kim Gi-hyeon, Yoon Sang-hyun and Kwon Young-jin were indicted on charges of obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant against former President Yoon Suk-yeol by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials and the police. Article 144 of the Criminal Act on special obstruction of official duties, which the special counsel applied, covers cases such as obstructing official duties by displaying the force of a group or crowd or by carrying a dangerous object. The requirements for obstruction of official duties under Article 136 of the same law must be met first, but the special counsel listed only the special obstruction charge in the indictment.
When the bench asked whether there had been any assault or intimidation of public officials, a requirement for obstruction of official duties, the special counsel said it had viewed the use of physical force to block the execution as an exercise of force. "Why did you not write that down? Did you read it? How can you list only Article 144, Paragraph 1 on its own?" the bench said.
The bench also asked why the term "jointly" was used when the lawmakers had been indicted as sole principals. The obstruction allegations against the People Power Party lawmakers had earlier been closed with a dismissal by the insurrection special counsel team led by Cho Eun-suk, which concluded the charges could not be substantiated. The insurrection team at the time concluded there were no circumstances indicating assault or intimidation, based on video evidence and statements from police officers at the scene. The comprehensive special counsel team decided to reopen the investigation, saying that a review of the video evidence and other material had confirmed the need to investigate facts that had not been sufficiently established.
In the trial of Cho Sung-hyun, a colonel and former commander of the Capital Defense Command's 1st Security Brigade, on charges of playing a key role in an insurrection, the bench also asked repeated questions because the charges were unclear. At the first pretrial hearing, the Seoul Central District Court's 38-1 criminal division, with Chief Judges Jang Sung-jin, Jung Soo-young and Choi Young-gak, said: "The indictment says he recognized and shared the purpose of subverting the constitution, but the meaning of 'shared' is not clear." The bench asked the special counsel to specify when the defendant came to hold the purpose of subverting the constitution so that his right to a defense would not be impaired.
The bench also asked for the lines of command and reporting to be clarified, saying: "One part says Colonel Cho directly ordered troops to climb over the National Assembly fence, while another part of the indictment does not specify the chain of orders, so the two do not match."
Similar criticism followed on the 15th in the trial of former presidential office public discipline secretary Lee Si-won and others on charges of obstructing the investigation into the death of a Marine. The Seoul Central District Court's 32nd criminal division, presided over by Chief Judge Ryu Kyung-jin, said: "There were far too many parts where the evidence for the abuse of authority and the disclosure of official secrets charges could not be considered shared, so at the last hearing we asked for the evidence list to be separated by charge. Nothing has been done to show which charge each piece of evidence proves. We cannot proceed with the trial in this state." Noting that the special counsel team on the Marine's death had already indicted defendants on the same abuse of authority charge in a separate ongoing trial, the bench asked the comprehensive special counsel whether it had any information on how that earlier case had progressed. The special counsel replied that such information likely existed but could not be confirmed at that moment.