Constitutional Court on 23rd to Question Minister Kim Yong-hyun as a Witness… May Face Yoon
Yoon’s Side Claims “Proclamation No. 1 was Drafted by Kim Yong-hyun and Modified”
‘Choi Sang-mok’s Note’ as Well… Yoon says “Only Kim Yong-hyun Could Have Made It”, ‘ ◇ ‘,
President Yoon Suk-yeol (photo left) and former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun./Photo=Newsis
, “[Financial News] The Constitutional Court is summoning former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, considered the ‘key man’ of the December 3 Martial Law State, as a witness in President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment trial. If President Yoon attends in person as he did previously, the two will likely come face-to-face, drawing attention from the legal community to what former Minister Kim might say. “,
, ‘According to the legal circles on the 22nd, the Constitutional Court will hold the 4th trial date for President Yoon’s impeachment on the 23rd and proceed with questioning former Minister Kim as a witness. Kim, who is detained in a detention center, has expressed his willingness to appear at the impeachment trial through his lawyer. President Yoon has also indicated through his lawyer that he plans to attend all the court’s proceedings directly, increasing the likelihood of their meeting. ‘,
, ‘Former Minister Kim is identified as the person who directly suggested martial law to President Yoon and wrote a note instructing the drafting of Proclamation No. 1 and the budget for an emergency legislative body. He is a senior alumnus of Chun Ang High School, making him one of President Yoon’s closest confidants. ‘,
, ‘Considering this, the testimony of former Minister Kim is likely to be a crucial piece of evidence in President Yoon’s impeachment trial. Like President Yoon, former Minister Kim is expected to emphasize the legitimacy of martial law in his testimony. Even after being detained, former Minister Kim has continuously sent messages supporting the President. ‘,
, ‘In the trial for charges of rebellion against former Minister Kim held on the 16th, his defense argued, “The declaration of martial law is within the exclusive authority of the President and is not subject to judicial review.” They pointed out, “If the judiciary judges the political actions of the President, it would result in judges engaging in political acts.” ‘,
, ‘A point of interest is whether there will be a disagreement between President Yoon and former Minister Kim regarding the detailed responsibilities in the process of declaring martial law. Subtle differences in opinions on the key issue of attempting to neutralize the National Assembly, which is central to the illegality of martial law, have already been detected. ‘,
, ‘In the impeachment trial, President Yoon’s representative claimed regarding the drafting of Proclamation No. 1 that “Former Minister Kim transcribed the martial law document from the past military regime, which had the right to dissolve the assembly, and President Yoon merely modified a few words” and argued that there was no intention to execute it. Proclamation No. 1, which includes the content of banning all political activities such as activities of the National Assembly and local assemblies, political parties, associations, meetings, and demonstrations, is also a key point of contention for legality. ‘,
, ‘Regarding the controversy over instructing former Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok to prepare a budget for the emergency legislative body to replace the National Assembly, President Yoon directly denied it and mentioned former Minister Kim. ‘,
, ‘Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae of the Constitutional Court asked, “Did you ever give a note instructing the preparation of a budget related to the emergency legislative body?” President Yoon responded, “I have never given such a note,” and added, “The only one who could make a note like that was the Minister of Defense, but since the Defense Minister was detained then, it was not specifically verified.” However, former Minister Kim’s lawyer countered, indicating “the President had reviewed everything overall. There were no mistakes.” ‘,
, ‘The National Assembly side has requested that President Yoon be removed or a screen be installed during the witness questioning, out of concern that key figures, including former Minister Kim, might find it challenging to provide truthful testimony in front of President Yoon. The Constitutional Court plans to discuss this after deliberation by the justices. \n’]