(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Lee Young, Lee Bae-eum = The 2nd comprehensive special prosecutor team, Kwon Chang-young, was once again pointed out by the court for its lack of preparation for trial.
On the 28th, Criminal Agreement Division 38-1 of the Seoul Central District Court (Chief Judge Jang Seong-jin, Su-yeong Jeong, and Choi Young-gak) criticized the special prosecutor's team for "seemingly ignoring the court" during the preparatory date for the follow-up trial in the case of former President Yoon Seok-yeol and former National Security Office Director Shin Won-sik on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights.
This is a statement made after the special prosecutor's team did not prepare any response to former Director Shin's request for explanation regarding the indictment.
Previously, at the trial preparation date held last September, former Minister Shin's side argued that the special prosecutor's team should reinforce and explain the specific grounds on which it believed that there was a 'purpose to disrupt the national constitution' and a 'riot', which are components of the charge of engaging in important civil war missions.
The court requested the special prosecution team to “submit a written opinion containing a general answer by the next date in order to clarify the issues in the case,” but the special prosecution team did not prepare an answer on this day.
The special prosecutor's team said there was no need to respond to the statement, saying, "It appears that the matters requested by defendant Shin Won-sik will ultimately have to be decided after an investigation of evidence."
In response, the court pointed out, "Even though there is no obligation to explain every single thing, the court ordered the court to submit a rough answer because it seemed that there were some things (in the indictment) that were unclear or omitted," and "It appears to have ignored this."
The court again requested explanation from the special prosecutor's team and asked, "In the indictment, does it mean that Yoon Seok-yeol gave instructions to Kim Tae-hyo (former deputy director of the National Security Office) and Shin Won-sik sympathized with him from the side? Does this mean that he was with Kim Tae-hyo and Shin Won-sik?"
When the special prosecutor's team responded, "It means that they gave instructions together," the court said, "Then, isn't it unnecessary to say 'Shin Won-sik heard and implicitly agreed' in the indictment? Please clarify the purpose of the indictment."
He then ordered, “Regarding defendant Shin Won-sik’s charge of engaging in important civil war missions, the indictment is missing the purpose of disrupting the National Constitution and its basis,” and ordered, “Please supplement the indictment.”
On this day, former President Yoon's lawyers denied all charges that he ordered the National Security Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to deliver a message to major allies such as the United States, Britain, Japan, and the European Union (EU) immediately after the declaration of martial law on December 3 that martial law was justified.
The defense attorney argued that the instructions stated in the indictment were never given or that it was a routine performance of diplomatic duties.
The court concluded the trial preparation procedures on this day and decided to hold the first trial on the afternoon of the 13th of next month. Unlike the trial preparation date, defendants are required to attend the formal trial.
Recently, there has been a series of cases where the comprehensive special prosecution team has been criticized by the court for poor indictment.
A similar point was made in the trial over the 'suspicion of neglect' in the Deutsche Motors stock price manipulation case held the previous day.
Seoul Central District Court Criminal Agreement Division 27 (Chief Judge Woo In-seong) said of the indictment at the trial preparation date for the case of five people, including former Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office Chief Lee Chang-soo, on charges of writing and holding false official documents, etc., that "there does not seem to be a punishment provision in the law itself for violating Article 4 of the Anti-Graft and Corruption Act."
He then asked, “Do you think it falls under Article 5, Paragraph 1, No. 14 of the Anti-Graft Act, even though there are no punishment provisions?”
Article 4 of the Anti-Corruption Act is a mandatory regulation for public officials that states, ‘Public officials must perform their duties fairly and with integrity without being influenced by private interests.’
Article 5 of the same law sets out the types of illegal solicitation that are prohibited, and also provides for punishment in case of violation.
The special prosecutor's team responded, "We will review the law and sort it out."
The court again said, “There is a conflict of opinion, but please look into the literature.” and asked, “Is the code of conduct for public officials a legal order? Have you read it?”
The special prosecutor's team said, "It is a legal order," and when asked if there was a precedent, they said, "We will review it and tell you. We are sure."
The court said that the part about 'deviantly abusing the position and authority or exercising it unrelated to the authority' was also "difficult to reconcile" and ordered, "If there is authority, please explain what kind of authority it is, and if there is no authority, how it was exercised."
The special prosecutor's team also requested that the deadline for submitting data be delayed, saying, "There are many cases that have been indicted, but the staffing situation is not good because there are no prosecutors."
