The first trial concerning the 'Dec. 3 martial law' incident, which involved charges of complicity (engaging in important duties) against military leadership, was held on the 17th. Former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun claimed, "We only discussed martial law, which is a power guaranteed by the Constitution, and it was not conspiracy or collusion."
The Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 25 (presiding Judge Director General Ji Gwi-yeon) held the first public trial at 2 p.m. that day for former Minister Kim, who faces charges of insurrection and abuse of power, and for former Intelligence Command Chief No Sang-won and former Intelligence Colonel Kim Yong-gun, who are accused of conspiring for martial law during the so-called 'Lotteria meeting.'
Former Minister Kim noted, "The state has been paralyzed and an economic crisis has arisen due to the misdeeds of the massive opposition party," but added, "The prosecution claims that I perceived the opposition as an anti-state force threatening national security, but I have never made such a statement and did not regard the opposition as an anti-state force."
He continued, "There was no illegal conspiracy for insurrection," and asked, "How can the discussion for martial law, which is a power guaranteed by the Constitution, be dared to be expressed as conspiracy?"
The former Minister's side argued that the insurrection charges against President Yoon Suk-yeol do not hold, thus making the indictment against former Minister Kim, based on that premise, unjustified. Attorney Lee Ha-sang, representing former Minister Kim, stated, "It is difficult to determine the timing of the (insurrection) initiation even after reading the indictment several times." He added, "We need to know when it started and ended to exercise our right to defense," and emphasized, "The prosecution lacks the investigatory authority for insurrection, and there is no basis for the prosecution to judge the constitutional requirements under which the President may declare martial law."
On that day, former Minister Kim's side also raised issues with the prosecution's method of stating the defendant's criminal facts in a 'full statement.' When the prosecution mentioned former Minister Kim's prior conspiracy for martial law and the preparation situation, attorney Lee referred to Article 285 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which states, "The prosecutor should read the charges, offense names, and applicable laws as indicated in the indictment," and suggested, "It seems it is not being read. How about summarizing it concisely with printouts?"
The prosecution said, "The presentation of essential statements of the charges is within the prosecutor's authority," and the court also mediated, stating, "If there are objections to the full statement, we will proceed with the procedures and (the defense) can speak later." However, attorney Lee responded, "Even though it is not a reading, using titles like Yoon Suk-yeol and Kim Yong-hyun is inappropriate; while ‘Minister’ can be used, the President is a head of state, so please change the titles somewhat."