Courts are repeatedly faulting cases brought by the second comprehensive special counsel team, led by Special Counsel Kwon Chang-young, saying the indictments lack specificity and that the legal reasoning and wording are inappropriate.
The 37-3 criminal division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by judges Ryu Chang-sung, Jang Sung-hoon and Oh Chang-seop, demanded detailed explanations and revisions on the 19th, saying the indictment was unclear at the first hearing in the case of former Defense Ministry spokesman Jeon Ha-gyu, who is accused of aiding an insurrection by following orders.
Jeon was sent to trial on charges that he received instructions from former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun and former Army Chief of Staff Park An-su, who served as martial law commander, and relayed the martial law decree by text message to reporters covering the Defense Ministry when martial law was declared on Dec. 3, 2024.
The court pointed out that the indictment omitted the time when Jeon attempted to contact the presidential office's senior secretary for public relations and others. When the special counsel team could not answer, the court asked again why the time of the act did not appear in that paragraph. The team said it would specify the time further and present its position.
"Shouldn't the end point of the act be stated so that the act can be identified and so that we can judge what awareness and intent it was carried out under?" the court said. It also asked whether the phrase "including Park An-su" was correct or a clerical error, noting that Park was neither a member of the public affairs strategy office nor someone who received instructions. The special counsel team had written in the indictment that "immediately after Park An-su signed the decree document, the defendant instructed personnel within the public affairs strategy office, including Park An-su, to 'disseminate it.'"
The special counsel team explained that the point was that Park was present at the scene rather than belonging to the public affairs strategy office, and that it was closer to telling him than instructing him. "Then doesn't the sentence not fit? You need to word it differently," the court said. "Park An-su does not appear to have been a member of the public affairs strategy office, nor does he appear to have been a recipient of the instruction. This does not seem to match what the prosecutor said."
The court told the special counsel team to specify in detail the circumstances under which Jeon was aware of a purpose to subvert the constitution and the basis on which he came to hold that awareness, in connection with the grounds for deploying troops to the National Assembly raised by Jeon's defense counsel. Jeon disseminated the contents of the decree to the media and to foreign affairs and security officials in government ministries at about 11:26 p.m., and the special counsel wrote in the indictment that Jeon was at the time aware of a purpose to subvert the constitution and of a riot including the blockade of the National Assembly.
Regarding the part stating that Jeon instructed that the decree be sent to the press corps through a text messaging system, the court also asked why a colonel surnamed Lee, who has no connection to the alleged facts, appeared in that sentence and whether that colonel was an accomplice.
Criticism that the indictments are poorly drafted has continued through trials of cases brought by the special counsel team. The 22nd criminal division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Cho Hyung-woo, said on the same day at the second pretrial hearing on charges against former first lady Kim Keon-hee of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes through brokerage and of abuse of authority, and against lawmaker Yoon of abuse of authority and violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, that it had not seen this provision applied to such cases before.
The special counsel team applied charges of violating the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, concluding that Kim Tae-young, chief executive of 21gram, borrowed the names of companies including Wondam Construction to sign construction contracts during the work on the presidential residence and did not issue tax invoices.
"In my experience, false tax invoices usually involve cases where only the paperwork was created to evade taxes while services were provided," the court said. "I will look into it, but I doubt it will work. This seems somewhat different." The special counsel team said it had reviewed the matter before filing the charges and would present its position if legally necessary, because the state ends up imposing taxes on the wrong company, which then pays them instead.
The court 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 necessary, the court stressed that it was not a matter of review but of writing it down. "It needs to be clear enough to tell which item the content relates to. Please add supplementary entries as reference items," the court said.
The 37-1 criminal division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by judges Jang Sung-hoon, Oh Chang-seop and Ryu Chang-sung, also told the special counsel team at the first hearing on charges that former Army Headquarters legal affairs chief Kim Sang-hwan aided an insurrection that the indictment's wording on boarding a martial law bus was awkward.
"The sentence saying that 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 court said. "It would be easier to understand if the boarding came first and the situation was laid out afterward. 'To form the martial law command' appears to be the main alleged fact, but the sequence does not seem to fit."