The original is gone, leaving only a memo with mixed handwriting. Evidence or fabrication? Hankook Ilbo Graphics.

Another controversy surrounding the December 3rd martial law incident is the memo by former National Intelligence Service First Deputy Director Hong Jang-won. This document was a key piece of evidence that the Democratic Party and the special prosecutor's office claimed was "evidence of rebellion execution" and was directly submitted during the Constitutional Court's deliberation. However, the original document does not exist, and only copies that have undergone multiple revisions and additions remain. This has made the memo's credibility and evidentiary value a constant subject of debate.

Four Versions, No Original

The released memo can be divided into at least four versions. The first memo, hastily scribbled on yellow sticky notes; a clean copy made by an aide; a second copy rewritten by former Deputy Director Hong; and the final, augmented version with names added in black pen. The handwriting visible in the actual photographs is a mixture of blue and black ink, and some are organized on paper with dots like graph paper.

Former Deputy Director Hong testified, "I crumpled up the original I first wrote." Ultimately, what was submitted to the Constitutional Court was the final, altered version, which left the fundamental limitation of the original's absence.

Discrepancies in Time and Location

Former Deputy Director Hong claimed, "I wrote the memo in the open space in front of the official residence." However, phone records and CCTV footage indicate that he was in his office at the time. As the statements and physical evidence regarding the time and place of writing conflict, questions have been raised as to whether the memo recorded the actual situation or was fabricated afterward.

Democratic Party and Special Prosecutor's Office: "Arrest List"

The Democratic Party and the special prosecutor's office interpreted this memo as a list of politicians to be arrested. The memo reportedly mentioned the names of President Lee Jae-myung, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and other key opposition figures. If Noh Sang-won's notebook was the 'blueprint in the planning stage,' then Hong Jang-won's memo was the 'list for the execution stage.'

The special prosecutor's office argued that the notebook and the memo were complementary. That is, the notebook represented the plan, and the memo the list, a twin evidence that could prove martial law as an act of rebellion. The Democratic Party strengthened its argument that martial law was indeed a rebellion by using this memo.

Conservative Camp: "Fabricated Document"

The conservative camp views it in the opposite way. They question how a document, for which the original is missing and only the aide's clean copy and an altered version remain, can serve as independent evidence. Furthermore, the statements about the time and place conflict, and the handwriting in the memo is mixed.

The conservative camp strongly suggests the possibility that this memo is a fabricated or altered document with political intentions. They argue that the Democratic Party and the special prosecutor's office have excessively inflated the significance of this document to strengthen the rebellion narrative. In other words, the memo is a political fabrication intended to solidify martial law as a rebellion.

Constitutional Court Deliberations and Evidentiary Value Debate

This memo, submitted even to the Constitutional Court, sparked fierce debate during its deliberation. Although the Constitutional Court does not strictly apply the rules of evidence as in criminal trials, it still emphasizes the credibility and independent evidentiary value of evidence.

Circumstances of Creation: The absence of the original and the mixed additions cast doubt on its authenticity.

Specificity of Content: Names were listed, but it was unclear if they were directly connected to execution plans.

Corroborating Evidence: It was judged to have limited significance only when combined with Noh Sang-won's notebook.

In conclusion, while the Constitutional Court stated that it "cannot rule out the possibility of it being an arrest list," it assessed its independent evidentiary value as limited. Therefore, the memo was adopted as supplementary material, not as core evidence for the main judgment.

Two Frames, Divided Conclusions

Ultimately, Hong Jang-won's memo was presented as the final piece of evidence for the Democratic Party's narrative, but simultaneously, the debate over its credibility exposed the weaknesses of that narrative.

Democratic Party/Special Prosecutor Narrative: The notebook and memo are twin evidence of the rebellion's planning and execution.

Conservative Camp Narrative: A memo without an original is highly likely to be fabricated and is merely a political frame.

Symbol or Illusion?

At the crossroads of the rebellion debate, Hong Jang-won's memo continues to oscillate between evidence and fabrication. It remains a symbol of the Democratic Party's narrative to define martial law as a rebellion, and simultaneously, a symbol of flimsy evidence.

In clarifying the truth of December 3rd, Hong Jang-won's memo is a record that must be examined. However, whether this document is evidence of rebellion or a political illusion has not yet been determined. What remains is ultimately the trial and historical evaluation. Is it an arrest list or a fabricated document? The answer is still open.

#December3rd #MartialLawControversy #HongJangWonMemo #ArrestListControversy #FabricationAllegations #ConstitutionalCourt #DemocraticPartyFrame #SpecialProsecutorInvestigation #FormerPresidentYoonSuk-yeol #HankookIlbo