News

"First Time Applying This Legal Provision," "Awkward Phrasing"... Criticisms Continue in Comprehensive Special Counsel Trials

"First Time Applying This Legal Provision," "Awkward Phrasing"... Criticisms Continue in Comprehensive Special Counsel Trials
▲ Kwon Chang-young, the 2nd Deputy Comprehensive Special Counsel, announces the final investigation results at the special counsel team's office in Gwacheon on August 24.

The court presiding over the trial regarding allegations of undue intervention in the relocation of the presidential residence by First Lady Kim Keon-hee and People Power Party Lawmaker Yoon Han-hong has expressed doubts over the application of charges by the 2nd Comprehensive Special Counsel team.

Recent trials for cases indicted by the comprehensive special counsel team have seen a continuous stream of criticisms from the bench.

On October 19, during a preparation hearing for the trial on charges including abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights against First Lady Kim and Lawmaker Yoon, the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Settlement Division 22 (Presiding Judge Cho Hyung-woo) remarked regarding the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, saying, "I have never experienced such provision being applied to cases like this."

The comprehensive special counsel team applied the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act based on the judgment that Kim Tae-young, CEO of 21 Gram, concluded construction contracts by borrowing the names of companies such as Wondam General Construction during the presidential residence construction process and failed to issue tax invoices.

The court stated, "Usually, based on experience, false tax invoices are cases where materials are just fabricated to evade taxes and services are provided," adding, "I will look into it, but wouldn't it not work? It seems a bit different."

The special counsel side responded, "We indicted after reviewing the matter," and added, "If legally necessary, we will submit our opinion."

Criticism was also raised regarding the inadequacy of the special counsel team's evidence list.

When Lawmaker Yoon's defense counsel requested that the purpose of proof be stated in the evidence list on this day, the special counsel side stated, "We will review it later and reflect the necessary parts."

In response, the court ordered, "This is not a matter of review; you must record it. What are you going to do if you only write four characters of the indictment facts?" and added, "It needs to be to the extent that one can recognize which item the content relates to. Supplement the records as a reference matter."

In the trial of Kim Sang-hwan, former head of the Legal Affairs Office at the Army Headquarters, who was indicted on charges of boarding the so-called "martial law bus," criticisms were raised that the sentences in the indictment by the 2nd Comprehensive Special Counsel team were awkward.

During the first trial date for former Office Head Kim on charges of aiding and abetting a riot, the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 37-1 (Presiding Judges Jang Sung-hoon, Oh Chang-seop, and Ryu Chang-sung) stated, "The phrasing that he boarded a bus, and that the bus departed from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to form the Martial Law Command and then returned is awkward."

The court further noted, "It might be easier to understand if boarding the bus comes first followed by the situation," and stated, "'For the purpose of forming the Martial Law Command' seems to be the main indictment fact, but the chronological order seems mismatched."

Former Office Head Kim was indicted on charges of boarding the so-called "martial law bus," which headed from the Army Headquarters in Gyeryongdae, South Chungcheong Province, to the martial law situation room to perform his duties as the chief of the legal affairs office of the Martial Law Command even after the National Assembly passed a resolution demanding the lifting of the emergency martial law.

On this day, the legal representative for former Office Head Kim denied the facts of the indictment and maintained his innocence.

The comprehensive special counsel team viewed the act of boarding the bus as aiding and abetting a riot, but pointed out that it is unclear which specific riot was involved.

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.
Copyright Ⓒ SBS & SBSi. All rights reserved.
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.

Most Read