On the 13th, National Intelligence Service Director Jo Tae-yong said, "There are four memos related to the so-called list of arresting agents received by former Vice Administrator Hong Jang-won, and what Hong explained about the memos to the National Assembly and Constitutional Court is different from the facts." Previously, Hong had stated that at around 11:06 p.m. on the day of the emergency martial law, former Counterintelligence Chief Yeo In-hyeong called him and dictated the list of arresting agents, and he took notes near the Director's official residence. However, on that day, Director Jo stated, "After checking the CCTV, at that time, Hong was in his office."
On that day, Director Jo appeared as a witness in the impeachment trial of President Yoon Seok-youl. Earlier, President Yoon's side requested Jo as a witness.
A representative from President Yoon's side asked Director Jo, "Former Vice Administrator Hong said that on the day of the emergency martial law, the former Commander of the Women's Investigation Unit dictated the list of arresting agents over the phone, and he wrote it down with his left hand but could not understand it, so he had his assistant write it down, and he was unclear whether the list contained 14 or 16 names. Did you verify the facts?"
In response, Director Jo stated, "This is the first I heard of the claims that former Vice Administrator Hong wrote (the memo) in front of the NIS Director's residence and had his assistant rewrite it, so I checked the facts, and they were different." He added, "In particular, there were two discrepancies: one was that Hong claimed he hastily took notes on a notepad in his pocket in a dark area in front of the Director's residence at 11:06 p.m., but the CCTV showed that Hong was in his own office at that time."
Director Jo stated, "Former Vice Administrator Hong said there were a total of two memos: one he wrote and one his assistant rewrote, but upon checking, there were four memos." According to the information Director Jo received, the assistant reported that "On the night of December 3rd, former Vice Administrator Hong gave him a Post-it note, and he transcribed it." The following afternoon, former Vice Administrator Hong asked this assistant, "Can you rewrite it based on what you remember?" and the assistant recollected and wrote down one more memo. Director Jo reported that this assistant only wrote down the names of individuals in blue ink.
Director Jo remarked, "However, the assistant did not circle this memo or add additional notes or any corrections," adding that "the memo written from memory by the assistant was supplemented by someone else, meaning there are a total of four memos." He continued, "If that is the case, former Vice Administrator Hong explained very specifically about something important at the Constitutional Court, but the content and framework are different from the facts."
Earlier, former Vice Administrator Hong testified at the Constitutional Court that there were 'two memos, one he wrote and one his assistant transcribed at his request.' However, on that day, Director Jo stated that there were four memos: ▲ the original memo written by former Vice Administrator Hong ▲ the first memo taken down by the assistant at Hong's request ▲ the second memo rewritten by the assistant at Hong's request ▲ and a memo with additions made to the second memo.