The special counsel investigating the insurrection case sought a seven-year prison term again on appeal for former National Intelligence Service Director Cho Tae-yong, who was indicted on charges including failing to fulfill the duty to report to the National Assembly during the Dec. 3 martial law and committing perjury at the National Assembly and the Constitutional Court.
On the 27th, at the appellate sentencing hearing before the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 1 (presiding judge Yoon Sung-sik), the special counsel investigating the insurrection case made this request in the appeal of charges including dereliction of duty and violating the National Intelligence Service Act against the former director. The sentence sought is the same as at the first-trial sentencing hearing.
The special counsel said, "The defendant sought to justify martial law and to conceal the unlawful arrest order," and asked the court to find guilty on all counts, including dereliction of duty and violating the National Intelligence Service Act, which the first trial found not guilty.
The former director was sentenced at the first trial to one year and six months in prison on charges of giving false testimony at the Constitutional Court to the effect that he had not received documents related to martial law from former President Yoon Suk-yeol during martial law and of drafting and submitting a response in the name of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) with the same content.
Citing, among other things, presidential office closed-circuit (CC)TV footage, the first-trial court found that the former director had received the documents from the former president and found him guilty of perjury and of drafting and using a false official document.
However, it found not guilty on the charge of dereliction of duty for not notifying the National Assembly even after receiving reports from former NIS Vice Administrator Hong Jang-won about orders to arrest politicians and the blockade of the National Assembly. The reasons were that Hong had not clearly reported that the arresting authority was the Defense Counterintelligence Command, and that it was difficult to conclude that the former director recognized this as an order from the president.
For the same reasons, it also found not guilty on the charge of testifying at the National Assembly's investigation that he had never been briefed by the former vice administrator on orders to arrest politicians.
It also found that the purpose of political involvement was not proven regarding the charges of providing NIS closed-circuit (CC)TV footage showing the movements of the former vice administrator to the People Power Party and sending letters stating that he had not been briefed on the arrest orders to employees of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It also found not guilty on the charge of destroying evidence by being involved in deleting information related to the secure phones used by the former president and the former vice administrator, saying it was difficult to rule out the possibility that it was a routine security measure.
On appeal, the special counsel argued that the first trial assessed too strictly the evidence regarding the content of the former vice administrator's report and the former director's awareness, and urged the court to overturn the lower ruling.