First Treason Trial After Yoon's Dismissal... Prosecution: "President's Emergency Measures Authority Subject to Judicial Review"

Yoon Seok-yeol's Impeachment, Constitutional Court Ruling Cited in Rebellion Trial
Prosecution: "Supreme Court and Constitutional Court Emergency Decree Authority Also Subject to Judicial Review"
Kim Yong-hyun's Side: "Ruling Specifies 'Overreach of the Opposition Party'"

After former President Yoon Seok-yeol was impeached, the prosecution cited the Constitutional Court's impeachment ruling for the first time during the trial on charges of rebellion against former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun. On the 10th, during the third hearing of former Minister Kim held by the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 25 (Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon), the prosecution rebutted the defense's claim that martial law is a political act and thus not subject to judicial review, stating, "(Martial law) is subject to judicial review, including the president's emergency decree authority, from the perspective of exercising the people's fundamental rights, as clearly affirmed by the Constitutional Court."

On the other hand, Kim Yong-hyun's defense referred to the part of President Yoon's impeachment ruling that pointed out the "overreach of the opposition party." The defense argued, "Rebellion is a crime of purpose, and the Constitutional Court's ruling acknowledged that there was a perception of a national crisis due to the opposition party's overreach, which can be politically respected," adding, "The Constitutional Court did not conclude that the subjective motive was unlawful."

The two sides also clashed sharply over illegally obtained evidence. The defense argued that it was inappropriate for the military prosecution to conduct the investigation while seconded to the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, that the prosecution's cross-examination constituted a forced investigation, and that the related evidence, including recorded phone calls, should be considered illegally obtained. They also emphasized that the scope of the prosecutor's investigation did not include "rebellion." Conversely, the prosecution stated, "There is no problem with the military prosecution's investigation procedures," and requested, "Please specify which regulations you base your claim of illegality on." Regarding the defense's claim of "lack of prosecutorial authority," the prosecution responded, "This matter has already undergone multiple judicial reviews."

Meanwhile, during the examination of Colonel Jeong Seong-wook of the Intelligence Command, who appeared as a witness that day, the court accepted the prosecution's argument that "state secrets could be leaked," and switched the trial to a closed session after about 15 minutes.