Court hears martial law message to allies had to go through Foreign Ministry
Version 2: Additional coverage of the same hearing added the defense's argument that the former secretary passed the message to the Foreign Ministry on his own judgment, and its position that Kim did not know the martial law intent when he received the order and so did not act to maintain an insurrection.
In short
A former foreign affairs secretary at South Korea's National Security Office testified at the first trial of Kim Tae-hyo, former first deputy director of the National Security Office, that an instruction to relay messages justifying the Dec. 3 martial law declaration to the United States and other allied countries could only have been carried out through the Foreign Ministry. Kim faces charges of engaging in important duties of insurrection and abuse of authority. His defense says he only instructed the secretary and never directly ordered Foreign Ministry officials, over whom he had no authority.
Read the full story 2 min read
Kim Tae-hyo, former first deputy director of the National Security Office, attended the first hearing of his trial at the Seoul Central District Court on Oct. 6, according to Yonhap, Newsis and CBS NoCut News. He faces charges of engaging in important duties of insurrection and of abuse of authority obstructing the exercise of rights, in connection with the Dec. 3 declaration of martial law. The hearing was held by Criminal Division 38-2, with judges Jung Soo-young, Choi Young-gak and Jang Sung-jin presiding. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
The court summoned Lee Choong-myeon, a former foreign affairs secretary at the National Security Office, as a witness. Lee was the person who received from Kim the instruction, issued shortly after the martial law declaration, to convey messages justifying the martial law to the United States and other allied countries, Yonhap reported. Lee testified that the instruction could only have been carried out through the Foreign Ministry, saying the message itself stated that foreign and external policy would be maintained unchanged. Asked whether there was another way, he said the alternative would have been for his office's staff to call allied embassies directly, which was not feasible close to midnight and was not advisable; CBS NoCut News reported similar testimony that it would have been unthinkable for junior officials to convey the matter to embassy diplomats. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
Yonhap reported that the special prosecution team noted Kim had acknowledged issuing the instruction but had not specified how it should be carried out, and that in questioning he said he thought the message would be delivered to the US embassy through administrative officials in the foreign affairs secretary's office. Lee responded that having those officials deliver the message at that hour was realistically impossible, and said he remembered confirming with Kim that the message would be passed to the Foreign Ministry. [ 1 ]
Kim's lawyer told the court that Kim had only instructed Lee and had not directly ordered Foreign Ministry officials, and that because he held no authority over ministry officials the abuse-of-authority charge does not stand, according to Yonhap. CBS NoCut News reported the defense as saying Lee passed the message to the Foreign Ministry on his own judgment. On the insurrection charge, that outlet reported Kim's position that he did not know the intent behind the martial law declaration when he received the order from former President Yoon Suk Yeol, and therefore did not carry it out in order to maintain or strengthen an insurrection. [ 1 , 3 ]
Lee also testified that before the martial law declaration Kim had frequently instructed him to convey the president's opinions or positions on particular matters to foreign countries, and that these were passed to the Foreign Ministry through Lee or through the head of the National Security Office, Yonhap and CBS NoCut News reported. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
Why it matters
The case turns on whether ordering a message to allied governments through the Foreign Ministry amounts to an illegal exercise of authority, a question that hinges on how the instruction actually travelled through the bureaucracy. It is part of the continuing legal reckoning over the Dec. 3 martial law declaration, in which the national security office is central, and touches on how Seoul communicates with Washington in a political crisis.
Key facts
- Kim Tae-hyo, former first deputy director of the National Security Office, attended the first hearing of his trial at the Seoul Central District Court on Oct. 6, Yonhap reported. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- He faces charges of engaging in important duties of insurrection and of abuse of authority obstructing the exercise of rights, according to Yonhap, Newsis and CBS NoCut News. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- The case concerns an instruction, issued after the Dec. 3 martial law declaration, to deliver messages justifying the martial law to the United States and other allied countries. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- Former foreign affairs secretary Lee Choong-myeon testified that the instruction could be carried out only through the Foreign Ministry. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- Lee said the message he received stated that foreign and external policy would be maintained unchanged, and that calling allied embassies directly close to midnight was neither feasible nor advisable. [ 1 , 2 ]
- Kim's defense argued he instructed only Lee and never directly ordered Foreign Ministry officials, over whom he had no authority. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- The prosecution said Kim acknowledged giving the instruction but stated he did not specify how it should be carried out and believed the message would reach the US embassy through administrative officials. [ 1 ]
- The hearing was held by Criminal Division 38-2 of the Seoul Central District Court, with judges Jung Soo-young, Choi Young-gak and Jang Sung-jin presiding, Yonhap reported. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
Confirmed by several sources
- Kim Tae-hyo, former first deputy director of the National Security Office, is standing trial on charges of engaging in important duties of insurrection and abuse of authority obstructing the exercise of rights, and his first hearing was held on Oct. 6 at the Seoul Central District Court. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- Testimony at the hearing stated that the instruction to relay martial law-justifying messages to allied countries had to be carried out through the Foreign Ministry. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- The instruction concerned messages justifying the Dec. 3 martial law declaration destined for the United States and other allied countries. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- Kim's defense denies that he directly ordered Foreign Ministry officials, saying he instructed only the former foreign affairs secretary. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
Still unclear
- Whether Kim directly ordered Foreign Ministry officials, the basis of the abuse-of-authority charge. Kim's defense denies it and says he had no authority over ministry officials; the prosecution says he acknowledged issuing the instruction but not a method, according to Yonhap.
- Whether Kim confirmed to Lee that the message would be delivered to the Foreign Ministry. Only Lee's testimony as reported by Yonhap supports this, against the account the prosecution says Kim gave in questioning.
- How the message was ultimately delivered to the US side. The documents describe the intended route through the Foreign Ministry and Kim's stated expectation regarding the US embassy, but give no confirmed account of the delivery.
- Whether Kim knew the intent behind the martial law declaration when he received the order from former President Yoon Suk Yeol. This is a defense position reported by a single outlet, CBS NoCut News, and is not addressed in the other documents.
What local media are saying
Timeline, local time
- Yonhap publishes its report on the first hearing, including testimony that the martial law-justifying message to allied countries had to go through the Foreign Ministry. [ 1 ]
- Newsis publishes its report headlining the same testimony, with a file photo of Kim at his July 10 arrest warrant hearing. [ 2 ]
- CBS NoCut News publishes its report adding the defense's arguments on the insurrection charge and its claim that Lee passed the message to the Foreign Ministry on his own judgment. [ 3 ]