Trial of Park Heung-joo on October 26, It Was Like Hitting a Rock with an Egg [Land of Happiness②]

Attorney Taeyungi Challenges Constitutionality of Single-Judge Military Trial for Active Soldiers
Points Out Reasons Why Treason Charges Cannot Be Established
Identifies Legal Duty Conflicts, States "Illegality Disappears"

In the movie 'Land of Happiness,' Jung In-hoo (Jo Jung-suk) defends Park Tae-joo (Lee Sun-kyun), the secretary to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He claims in court that he was unintentionally caught up in the October 26 Incident. The reality is harsher than for the other defendants. As an active-duty soldier, he is subject to a single-instance trial system. His sentence is finalized along with the first trial verdict.

Jung In-hoo files a petition for a constitutional review. The lawyer Tae Yoon-gi, who inspired this, did the same. While defending Park Heung-joo, pointed to by Park Tae-joo, he raised the issue that as an active-duty soldier, the Military Court Act stipulates a single-instance trial with no right to appeal. He requested the Constitutional Court to determine whether this violates the constitution.

The presiding judge bluntly stated that the Military Court Act, which stipulates a single-instance trial for crimes committed by soldiers under martial law, cannot be considered unconstitutional. He declared that the petition for constitutional review alone does not constitute an obstacle to the trial of the October 26 Incident and that the trial would proceed.

Tae Yoon-gi emphasized that this was a matter of life and death. He insisted again that this was not a decision to be made lightly in this court and that the Constitutional Court should judge it. He announced that he would file a motion to disqualify all judges, stating that he could not trust a fair trial for Park Heung-joo.

According to Andong-il, who defended Kim Jae-kyu and published the book 'I Was Kim Jae-kyu's Lawyer' in 2017, the courtroom atmosphere became heated for a moment. Lieutenant Colonel Jeon Chang-ryeol, the prosecutor, spoke as if determined.

"The defense attorneys, as representatives of the public interest, are warned that if they betray their mission to realize social justice and misuse legal procedures to defend the failed attempt of defendant Kim Jae-kyu's state rebellion, thereby misleading the truth and causing social confusion, it will be entirely the responsibility of the defense team and will be subject to stern criticism from discerning citizens."

The entire situation was being relayed to the office of the Legal Affairs Inspector located in the room right in front of the main courtroom entrance. Officials from the Martial Law Command Joint Investigation Headquarters gathered and listened to all the arguments. Whenever a problem arose, they devised countermeasures and wrote notes to deliver to the judges. This was an unprecedented event in the history of trials in our country.

Tae Yoon-gi ironically pointed out this situation during his defense. "I consider it an honor to be entrusted with the defense of defendant Park Heung-joo in this historic trial and to witness this trial firsthand. I am honored to participate in a trial conducted under the strict guard of soldiers armed with M16 communications."

In the subsequent trial, Tae Yoon-gi argued that the October 26 Incident and Articles 87 and 88 of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes of rebellion and rebellion-motivated murder are far apart. Both crimes specify the purpose of 'disrupting the national territory or the constitutional order,' but since defendant Kim Jae-kyu sought to lawfully enforce martial law at the Ministry of National Defense, his actions cannot be seen as disrupting the constitutional order. He also defended the establishment of the Revolutionary Committee as a measure to counter North Korea.

"This is an incident involving the assassination of the natural person Park Chung-hee. When Kim Jae-kyu said, 'If the country goes wrong, you and I will die together,' and 'the Chief of Staff and others are here,' Park Heung-joo thought, 'Something big that I don't understand is happening.'

Regarding Park Heung-joo's actions on the day of the incident, he emphasized that the strict discipline of the Central Intelligence Agency, which demands unconditional obedience, was at work.

"Defendant Park Heung-joo said, 'Orders and execution are essential conditions of the organization,' and defendant Kim Jae-kyu also said, 'He did not give defendant Park Heung-joo and others time to choose orders.' No one could refuse to follow orders. Moreover, obedience and orders are essential requirements for members of the organization. Especially in the Central Intelligence Agency, subordinates have no freedom to criticize orders."

Tae Yoon-gi presented one more defense element: a legal conflict of duties. Park Heung-joo chose the superior's order over moral duty as a soldier. Considering the military organization, no illegality can be found.

Tae Yoon-gi also strongly appealed to the fact that Park Heung-joo was a competent and honest soldier, praised as a future Army Chief of Staff. "The defendant is a military officer who graduated from the Military Academy and, despite being in a powerful agency as the secretary to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, lives in a humble house at the top of Haengdang-dong. I hope you will take his wife and children into consideration and show leniency."

However, the Army Headquarters Martial Law Ordinary Military Court applied the charges of rebellion-motivated murder and attempted rebellion-related important duty and sentenced him to death. He ended his life on this earth before the Supreme Court's final verdicts on other defendants were issued.