Former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun. Yonhap News. 

The legal team for former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, who is on trial for allegedly participating in the 12.3 martial law declaration, engaged in a dispute with the special prosecution team over the defendant's request for the court to submit a constitutional review of the "Special Prosecutor Act."

The Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Agreement Division 25 (Presiding Judge Ji Gwi-yeon) held a continued public hearing on the charge of engaging in important martial law duties for former Minister Kim and others on the 14th, hearing both sides' positions on the constitutional review.

Previously, on the 11th, former Minister Kim's legal team applied for the court to submit a constitutional review, citing issues with the provisions for speedy trial and trial disclosure in the Special Prosecutor Act.

A constitutional review submission is a system where a court, ex officio or upon a party's application, refers a law to the Constitutional Court for review if the constitutionality of the law is a prerequisite for the trial. If the court submits it to the Constitutional Court, the trial is suspended until the Constitutional Court makes a decision.

Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Special Prosecutor Act, which former Minister Kim's team has challenged, stipulates, "Trials for cases indicted by the special prosecutor shall take precedence over other trials and be conducted speedily. First instance judgments shall be rendered within 6 months from the date of indictment, and second and third instance judgments shall be rendered within 3 months from the date of the preceding judgment, respectively."

Former Minister Kim's legal team also argued that Article 11, Paragraph 3, which mandates the disclosure of trial proceedings and judgments, and Paragraph 4, which states that "if the special prosecutor applies for trial broadcasting, the presiding judge shall permit it unless there are special circumstances," are unconstitutional.

In response, the special prosecution team argued in court, "It is difficult to consider these provisions as violating the Constitution. They are in accordance with the defendant's right to a speedy trial and should be deemed constitutional." They further stated, "Regarding trial broadcasting, it is considered reasonable (justifiable) to be in accordance with the Constitution, which proclaims the principle of open trials."

In response, former Minister Kim's legal team countered, "The principle of speedy trial is stipulated within the scope of a fair trial." They added, "The Constitution only stipulates the principle of disclosure. Trials can be held in private within the scope that does not harm national security, safety, or order, but the Special Prosecutor Act fundamentally excludes this possibility."

They further requested the court to consider non-public trials, stating, "Is it not intended to shame us by disclosing the trial?"

The court stated, "We will review whether the provisions of the Special Prosecutor Act apply only to cases indicted by the special prosecutor or also to cases that were initially indicted by the existing prosecution and then handed over to the special prosecutor."

Yonhap News