'Fast-Track Clash' Korean Party Trial to Resume After April General Election

Second Pretrial Conference Set for April 28... Tensions Over Trial Schedule
Prosecution: "Swift Trial" vs. Defense: "After April 15 General Election"
Liberty Korea Party: "Case Started with Illegal Substitution... Prosecution Investigation Also Insufficient"

On April 30 last year, after the electoral reform bill was designated as a fast-track agenda, Na Kyung-won, the floor leader of the Liberty Korea Party, and lawmakers shouted for the overthrow of dictatorship outside the Political Reform Special Committee meeting room.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Yoo Byung-don] The trial of the Liberty Korea Party (LKP) lawmakers indicted over last year's 'National Assembly Fast-Track (Rapid Processing Agenda) Clash Incident' will resume after the April 15 general election.

At the first trial held on the 17th, the LKP lawmakers denied the charges, claiming that the clash at the time was a legitimate act opposing the illegal substitution (resignation and replacement) procedure.

The Seoul Southern District Court Criminal Division 11 (Chief Judge Lee Hwan-seung) held the first pretrial hearing for a total of 27 people, including LKP leader Hwang Kyo-ahn, lawmakers Na Kyung-won, Kang Hyo-sang, Kim Myung-yeon, Kim Jung-jae, Min Kyung-wook, and three aides, who were indicted on charges including violation of the National Assembly Act and obstruction of official duties.

The defense attorneys argued, "This case itself originated from an illegal substitution procedure by members of the Special Committee on Judicial Reform (Saege Special Committee)," adding, "The defendants committed the acts as a necessary legitimate action to oppose the illegality, and therefore deny the charges."

They continued, "Regarding the issues of the case, a judicial review is currently underway at the Constitutional Court since the 13th," and added, "Even if the defendants' actions meet the elements of a crime, there is sufficient justification for illegality exemption as an exercise of the right to resist."

They also stated, "The prosecution filed a batch indictment in early January while the fast-track procedure was ongoing, but a sufficient investigation into the basic facts was not conducted."

During the trial, the prosecution and defense clashed over scheduling the next pretrial hearing.

The defense requested the court to set the date after the April 15 general election, saying, "Most of the defendants are current lawmakers who are fully engaged in election preparations with less than two months remaining. Moreover, the case evidence records exceed 21,000 pages, and the digital evidence (video) exceeds 6 terabytes (TB)."

They added, "During the investigation, the prosecution cited the seriousness of the matter to prevent the defense from even viewing the interrogation records. We were only able to secure part of the records after the indictment," arguing that sufficient time should be granted to review the evidence.

The prosecution countered, "We understand the defense's circumstances, but it is better to proceed with the trial quickly to allow each defendant to focus on the election."

The court also remarked, "Based on decades of trial experience, delaying the pretrial hearing leads to endless prolongation of the trial," indicating agreement with the prosecution.

However, the defense insisted, "We cannot simply accept the investigation materials based on the prosecution's video analysis," and "The defendants must be allowed to thoroughly review the videos themselves to acknowledge the relevant facts."

Ultimately, the next pretrial hearing was scheduled for April 28, after the April 15 general election.

Meanwhile, the defendants in this case were indicted earlier this year on charges of obstructing the National Assembly meeting from being held during the fast-track clash in April last year.

The pretrial hearing held on this day is a procedure to organize the prosecution and defendants' positions on the charges, clarify issues, and plan the trial before the formal hearing. Since it is not a formal trial, the defendants are not obligated to appear in court. Accordingly, none of the 27 defendants appeared in court for this trial.