It was revealed that Kim Keon-hee exchanged messages on the mobile messenger Telegram with then Presidential Security Service Vice Minister Kim Seong-hun, indicating they needed to block the arrest, when the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) was preparing to arrest former President Yoon Suk-yeol.
On the 16th, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 35 (Presiding Judge Baek Dae-hyeon, presiding judge) sentenced former President Yoon Suk-yeol to five years in prison for obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and infringing on Cabinet members' deliberation rights.
◇Kim Keon-hee said, "Please consult with legal professionals and handle the legal response"
The judgment obtained by ChosunBiz on the 20th includes messages that reveal what was happening inside the presidential residence at the time of the obstruction of the arrest.
The CIO obtained an arrest warrant for the former president from the court on Dec. 31, 2024, and attempted to execute the first arrest warrant on Jan. 3 last year. That attempt failed, and after obtaining another arrest warrant on the 7th of the same month, it succeeded in arresting the former president on the second attempt on the 15th.
At the end of Dec. 2024, Kim and former Vice Minister Kim exchanged Telegram messages about the CIO's attempt to arrest.
When Kim asked, "A search and seizure of the residence is not possible for now, right?" former Vice Minister Kim said, "Yes, there will be no search and seizure going forward." When Kim said, "Vice Minister, thank you so much," former Vice Minister Kim said, "First lady, please don't worry and remain at ease."
Kim then asked, "I hear the Democratic Party will bring forward a special counsel bill that would allow a search and seizure of the residence's situation room (the presidential secretariat). If that passes, the Presidential Security Service won't be able to block it, right?" Former Vice Minister Kim said, "We can block it."
Kim then asked, "Oh, so it can still be blocked? 'V' (the former president) is a bit worried." Former Vice Minister Kim said, "These are insurrection charges, the sentence hasn't even been finalized, and amid divided opinions among legal professionals that it's hard to see this as insurrection, even if something beyond a special counsel were to come for a sitting president, under the current Security Service Act we can fully block it." Kim then said, "Please consult with legal professionals and handle the legal response as well."
The court said, "(The former president) effectively turned public officials of the Presidential Security Service, who are loyal to the Republic of Korea, into a private militia for personal safety and private interests," adding, "The defendant's culpability is very poor."
◇Court finds the post hoc martial law proclamation similar to the 1980 new military regime's martial law documents
The court found that the martial law proclamation drafted by the former president after the lifting of the Dec. 3 emergency martial law resembled the martial law documents drawn up in 1980, when Chun Doo-hwan's new military regime held power.
The judgment included images showing similarities between the Dec. 3 emergency martial law proclamation, the May 17, 1980 martial law proclamation, and the Oct. 16 proclamation of the same year. The court pointed out that items such as the "president's signature field," "date of martial law proclamation," and "prime minister's signature field" appear identically in all three proclamations.
Kang Ui-gu, former presidential office secretary for the annex, argued that the martial law proclamation prepared after the lifting of emergency martial law was a reference document created at discretion. The court said, "This document was prepared as an official document intended to be used to prove that it met the requirements of the documentary principle and countersignature system set forth in Article 82 of the Constitution, in case there was later a question about whether the requirements for proclaiming martial law were met." The former president was found guilty of falsifying official documents.
◇Yoon's side's 'messaging martial law' claim serves as grounds for recognizing guilt for 'obstructing Cabinet members' deliberation'
The former president's side has argued there was no intent of insurrection in the Dec. 3 emergency martial law, calling it "messaging martial law" (a warning-purpose martial law). This point became grounds for the court's finding that the former president infringed on deliberation rights by not notifying some Cabinet members of the convening of the Cabinet meeting.
The court said, "The defendant (the former president) argues that he sought to declare so-called 'messaging martial law' for the purpose of informing the public of the status and gravity of a national security crisis and a government paralysis caused by the opposition party, without physical measures such as controlling the National Assembly," adding, "Even by that argument, it is hard to see that the urgency and secrecy required were such that he could not notify all Cabinet members of the convening."