Yun chuckled, “The military was withdrawn, but the civil war continues?”… A rebuttal to the comprehensive special investigation

In response to the 2nd Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's Team Kwon Chang-young's judgment that the end of the rebellion following the December 3 emergency martial law was not the lifting of martial law but the passing of the impeachment bill against the president, former President Yoon Seok-yeol countered, saying, "It is difficult to understand that (the civil war) continued even after the martial law situation was completely lifted."

Former President Yoon said this at the first trial of the first trial on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights held on the 13th at the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Agreement Division 38-1 (Chief Judges Jang Seong-jin, Su-young Jeong, and Young-gak Choi).

The comprehensive special prosecutor's team indicted former President Yoon in August, saying that immediately after declaring martial law on December 3, he ordered the National Security Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to deliver a message to the United States, Britain, Japan, and the European Union (EU) to the effect that martial law was justified.

The court asked former President Yoon's position regarding the special prosecutor's team's decision that the end of the insurrection was until December 14, 2024, when the impeachment bill was passed in the National Assembly.

Former President Yoon chuckled and said, "The National Assembly passed a resolution requesting the lifting of martial law at 1:01 a.m. A few minutes later, the Minister of National Defense ordered the commanders to withdraw all troops. Since the arrival of the State Council was delayed, before holding the cabinet meeting (to lift martial law), I called the Minister of National Defense and the martial law commander and ordered all military officers who were waiting to go home."

As there was an open conflict with the special investigation team, which viewed the end of the civil war as an announcement of the lifting of martial law during the investigation by the general special prosecutor team, the end point is expected to become an issue in future trials.

Former President Yoon's side completely denied the charge that he ordered major allies to deliver a message justifying the December 3 emergency martial law, saying, "The essence is diplomatic crisis management."

He said, “Maintaining trust with allies and ensuring continuity of foreign policy and security is the essential responsibility of the president,” and added, “No matter what the evaluation of martial law is, even communicating with allies for the national interest cannot be considered a crime.”

The purpose of trying to explain the position of the president, who is the final decision-maker on foreign policy and head of the executive branch, through diplomatic channels is to operate a normal command system.

He claimed that he had told Kim Tae-hyo, former First Deputy Director of the National Security Office, to 'explain this to the Ambassador to the United States', but that he had not given any specific instructions and that he had never instructed him to deliver a message to the UK or Japan.

He also emphasized that even if there were instructions, it does not constitute abuse of power.

Former National Security Office Director Shin Won-sik, who was indicted along with former President Yoon on charges of engaging in important civil war missions and abuse of power, also denied all charges.

Former Chief Shin's side said, "The first thing the defendant said to the President as he was coming out of the cabinet meeting was, 'What kind of martial law are you talking about? Cancel it immediately.'"

He then claimed that he refused a phone call from the White House chief security officer at the time of martial law, saying, "I said, 'This is martial law that I cannot understand or tolerate, so what can I say to the United States now?'"

Former Director Shin's side also overturned his statement during the Special Investigation Team's investigation.

He said he had no memory of receiving a call from former President Yoon during a meeting on December 4, the day after martial law, and ordering him to deliver the outline of martial law to four countries, including Australia.

Former Director Shin said, "Because the results of the investigation of the subordinate by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time said so, we could not say that the subordinate's statement was wrong just because he did not remember. We believed what the subordinates said. However, after reading the investigation records this time, we learned that there was no record of a phone call between the defendant and former President Yoon that day."

On this day, the comprehensive special prosecution team also received a request from the court to supplement the contents of the indictment.

Regarding the point in time when former Director Shin specifically recognized the purpose of disrupting the National Constitution, the court noted, “It is vaguely stated as being during the time of martial law,” and added, “It seems necessary to clearly state at what point during martial law he recognized the purpose of disrupting the Constitution.”

He also said, "You said you justified martial law by distorting the facts, but please point out which part was distorted. The content of the message is made up of simple sentences, so it may be seen as an intention to justify the purpose of martial law, but it does not seem to contain content that distorts the facts."

In response, the special prosecutor's team responded, "We believe that even though martial law is an act of destruction of the Constitution, it is distorted and contrary to the facts, saying it is 'protection of liberal democracy.'"

Then, the court said, "In the case of defendant Seok-yeol Yoon, isn't it a trial that questions whether the delivery of the message was an act of insurrection, but whether it was an abuse of power?" and asked, "At the time of martial law, it seems inevitable that an explanation of the purpose of martial law would be delivered to allies in some way. Please specify which part of it went beyond normal diplomatic duties."