Ex-army commander Kang Ho-pil seeks dismissal of martial law insurrection case
In short
Lawyers for Kang Ho-pil (강호필), a former army Ground Operations Commander charged over the December 3, 2024 martial law, argued at his first pretrial hearing at the Seoul Central District Court on October 8 that the indictment should be dismissed. They said the second comprehensive special counsel must show it consulted the earlier insurrection special counsel, which had excluded Kang from indictment; the special counsel called the argument excessive. The court set another pretrial hearing for November 2.
Read the full story 2 min read
Lawyers for Kang Ho-pil (강호필), former army Ground Operations Commander, argued on October 8 that the insurrection case against him should be dismissed. They spoke at the first pretrial hearing on his charge of engaging in critical duties of an insurrection, held by Criminal Collegiate Division 37-1 of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Jang Seong-hun (장성훈). [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
The defense said the second comprehensive special counsel team, led by Kwon Chang-young (권창영), must prove it consulted the insurrection special counsel team led by Cho Eun-suk (조은석), which had excluded Kang from indictment. Yonhap reported that the comprehensive special counsel law requires consultation with the earlier special counsels on matters that reverse their investigation or indictment decisions. According to Chosun Ilbo, the defense said the indictment should be dismissed if no consultation took place or if it was only a formality. The defense also noted that the Second Operations Command had set up subordinate martial law units but the special counsel brought no charges over it, and sought dismissal unless the special counsel could reasonably explain the difference. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
The special counsel team called the argument excessive. Yonhap reported it said that even if its decision could be read as differing from the insurrection counsel's, it was not a "reversal of a decision" under the law. Chosun Ilbo quoted it as saying consultation is required only for a clearly different decision, and that even a breach would not justify dismissal because the provision does not exist to protect defendants' interests. On the Second Operations Command, it said the facts were different and offered to provide material to the defense if asked. [ 2 , 3 ]
Kang was indicted without detention in August on charges that, after martial law was declared on December 3, 2024, he directed the setting up of an internal situation room at Ground Operations Command and ordered the convening of its crisis action team and all of its officers. The comprehensive special counsel alleges he acted as district martial law commander, ordered the formation of subordinate regional martial law commands and ordered subordinate units to deploy under former defense minister Kim Yong-hyun (김용현), Yonhap reported. The insurrection special counsel had found no indication that Ground Operations Command actually deployed troops or carried out specific missions. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
Kang is also suspected of taking part in discussions before the martial law. The comprehensive special counsel read the initials in a memo left by former Defense Counterintelligence Commander Yeo In-hyung (여인형) about a month before the declaration as referring to four commanders; Yeo testified in court that one initial meant Kang, Newsis reported. Newsis also reported that the comprehensive special counsel did not hold separate consultations with the insurrection team, reportedly because Kang had not been booked by that team. [ 1 , 3 ]
The court will hold another pretrial hearing on November 2. Newsis reported that the proceedings also cover Park Jae-yeol (박재열), former commander of the 7th Corps, accused of convening subordinate units for martial law missions and following Kang's instructions. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
Why it matters
A dismissal of the indictment would end the case without a ruling on its substance, Yonhap explained; the defense is seeking one over whether the comprehensive special counsel followed the consultation provision in its law. The insurrection special counsel had earlier excluded Kang after finding no indication that his command deployed troops or carried out specific missions, while the comprehensive special counsel charged him.
Key facts
- The Seoul Central District Court held the first pretrial hearing on October 8 in the case of former Ground Operations Commander Kang Ho-pil, charged with engaging in critical duties of an insurrection. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- Kang's defense argued the indictment should be dismissed, questioning whether the second comprehensive special counsel consulted the earlier insurrection special counsel. [ 2 , 3 ]
- The insurrection special counsel led by Cho Eun-suk (조은석) had excluded Kang from indictment. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- The special counsel team called the defense argument excessive. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Kang was indicted without detention in August. [ 2 , 3 ]
- He is charged with directing the setting up of an internal situation room at Ground Operations Command and ordering the convening of its crisis action team and all officers after martial law was declared on December 3, 2024. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- The court will hold another pretrial hearing on November 2. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Former 7th Corps commander Park Jae-yeol (박재열) is also on trial in connection with the martial law. [ 1 ]
Confirmed by several sources
- The first pretrial hearing in Kang Ho-pil's insurrection case was held at the Seoul Central District Court on October 8. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- Kang's defense argued the indictment should be dismissed because the comprehensive special counsel had to consult the insurrection special counsel, which had excluded Kang from indictment. [ 2 , 3 ]
- The defense pointed out that the Second Operations Command had also set up subordinate martial law units but the special counsel brought no charges over it. [ 2 , 3 ]
- The special counsel said the defense argument was excessive and that the facts concerning the Second Operations Command were different. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Kang was indicted without detention in August. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Another pretrial hearing is set for November 2. [ 2 , 3 ]
Still unclear
- Whether the comprehensive special counsel consulted the insurrection special counsel before indicting Kang. The defense demanded proof; Newsis reported no separate consultation took place, and the special counsel argued consultation was not required in this case.
- Why the Second Operations Command was treated differently from Ground Operations Command. The special counsel said only that the facts were different and offered material to the defense.
- Whether Kang took part in discussions before the martial law declaration. This is a suspicion; Newsis tied it to the special counsel's reading of a memo and Yeo In-hyung's testimony.
- Whether the court will dismiss the indictment. The court has not ruled and set another pretrial hearing for November 2.
What local media are saying
Timeline, local time
- December 3, 2024: Ground Operations Command reportedly convened its crisis action team through a voice broadcast system. [ 1 ]
- October 8: Newsis reports that Kang's trial is to begin with a first pretrial hearing. [ 1 ]
- Yonhap reports the defense's dismissal argument and the special counsel's rebuttal at the first pretrial hearing. [ 2 ]
- Chosun Ilbo reports the defense's demand for dismissal and the next hearing date of November 2. [ 3 ]