Executive Summary
- The Seoul Central District Court aims to conclude the trial of former Minister Lee Sang-min on January 12.
- Lee faces charges related to cutting power and water to media outlets during the December 3 martial law declaration.
- High-profile witnesses, including the former Prime Minister and Defense Minister, are scheduled to testify.
- Testimony revealed that no official minutes were prepared for the martial law Cabinet meeting.
The trial of former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min, who faces charges related to ordering power and water cutoffs to media outlets during the December 3 emergency martial law declaration, is expected to conclude in mid-January. On December 15, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 32, presided over by Judge Ryu Kyung-jin, indicated that the final hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 12. The proceedings are examining Lee’s alleged involvement in key duties related to insurrection and the suppression of press operations during the crisis.
The court has outlined a comprehensive schedule for witness examinations leading up to the final ruling. Upcoming sessions will feature testimony from high-profile figures, including former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, and former Presidential Chief of Staff Kang Ui-gu. Further hearings are set to include former National Security Adviser Shin Won-sik and former Chief of the Office of the President Jeong Jin-seok. Additionally, former Minister of Justice Park Sung-jae and former Minister of Foreign Affairs Cho Tae-yul are scheduled to appear later in the month.
During recent proceedings, Kim Han-soo, a legislative affairs official at the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, provided testimony regarding the administrative handling of the martial law declaration. Kim told the court that despite his role involving the preparation of minutes for Cabinet meetings, he received no contact regarding the December 3 meeting and did not attend. He testified that he later requested a summary of remarks from the Presidential Office but received only the time and agenda name, with no content or summaries provided.
Kim further testified that on December 4, the day following the declaration, former Minister Lee summoned him to discuss the event. According to Kim, Lee acknowledged the ambiguity of the gathering, stating they needed to determine if it constituted a formal Cabinet meeting, while asserting that a quorum appeared to have been formed. When questioned by special counsel, Kim confirmed there were no prior instances where Cabinet meeting minutes were not prepared.
Procedural Integrity and Legal Implications
The conclusion of this trial will mark a pivotal moment in the judicial review of the December 3 martial law declaration, particularly concerning the adherence to administrative protocols during state emergencies. The scrutiny placed on the absence of official cabinet minutes and the chain of command for utility cutoffs highlights the court’s focus on procedural transparency and the legality of orders affecting civil liberties. As the judiciary examines the testimony of top-level officials, the case serves as a test of accountability for executive actions taken during constitutional crises. It is important to note that all individuals involved in these proceedings are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
