'Co-conspirator in Rebellion' Kim Yong-hyun's First Trial: "Presidential Powers Guaranteed by the Constitution"... Reiteration of Yoon's Claims

Kim Yonghyun: "Martial Law Was to Stop the Misconduct of the Giant Opposition Party"
Also Raises Issues with Presidential Title and Trial Procedures

Former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, who was arrested and indicted on charges of engaging in important duties related to the '12·3 Emergency Martial Law' internal rebellion, claimed at his first trial, "We only discussed the emergency martial law, which is a presidential right guaranteed by the Constitution, and it was not a conspiracy or collusion."

Yonhap News

On the 17th, the Criminal Division 25 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon) held the first trial for former Minister Kim, former Commander of the Republic of Korea Army Intelligence Command Noh Sang-won, and former Military Police Commander of the 3rd Field Army Command Kim Yong-gun, who are accused of internal rebellion and abuse of authority.

Given the opportunity to speak that day, former Minister Kim directly stated his position that he could not admit to the internal rebellion charges, mentioning the "giant opposition party." He said, "The misconduct of the giant opposition party had become severe, and at that time, there were 22 mass impeachment proposals, which were truly unconstitutional and illegal," adding, "We only discussed the emergency martial law, which is an inherent presidential authority guaranteed by the Constitution, so I don't understand how this can be called a conspiracy." He further said, "Then are you saying that the emergency martial law itself under the Constitution is illegal? Are you denying the Constitution? I do not think so."

Former Minister Kim stated, "It was not for the purpose of disrupting the national order, but to stop the misconduct of the giant opposition party that was committing national disorder and to sound the alarm (with martial law)," adding, "I have lived for the people for 40 years, albeit modestly, so why would I disrupt the national order? That makes no sense." This aligns with President Yoon’s earlier consistent claim that "martial law was due to the giant opposition party and is a presidential authority guaranteed by the Constitution."

Former Minister Kim’s side also clashed with the prosecution over the use of the title 'President Yoon Seok-yeol.' Lawyer Lee Ha-sang said, "They refer to him as Yoon Seok-yeol, Kim Yong-hyun, and so on, but while it might be acceptable for a minister, the president is the head of state, so please change the way you address him." This was a criticism of the prosecution’s mention of President Yoon as 'President Yoon Seok-yeol' and former Minister Kim as 'Defendant Kim Yong-hyun' during the summary of the charges.

In response, the prosecution countered, "Opening statements are the prosecution’s prerogative and the start of the trial, so obstructing them is an infringement of the right to make statements," adding, "We request that measures be taken to prevent such incidents in the future." The court mediated by saying, "That is for the prosecution to handle," and "Please listen to the opening statements first and then discuss."

Additionally, former Minister Kim’s side raised issues with the prosecution’s method of delivering the opening statements. Lawyer Lee suggested to the court, "It doesn’t seem like a reading aloud. How about doing it concisely with printed materials?" Former Commander Noh’s side also raised objections to the trial proceedings, causing a suspension of about 30 minutes. Lawyer Choi Ki-sik said, "The prosecution’s materials are not being transmitted to the defense counsel’s seat monitors."

Former Minister Kim was brought to trial on charges of ordering the deployment of armed martial law troops along with President Yoon Seok-yeol to block the National Assembly and prevent the resolution to lift the emergency martial law. Former Commander Noh and former Military Police Commander Kim are accused of conspiring and pre-planning the internal rebellion during the so-called 'Hamburger Joint Meeting.'