Supreme Court. Yonhap News.

Kim Byung-joon, Former Professor at Kangnam University, Ph.D. in Business Administration, Current Co-CEO of JagyomoCurrently, a trial is underway through the special prosecutor regarding the charges of insurrection against former President Yoon Seok-yeol. Insurrection refers to the act of rebellion against the state, illegally seizing state power through violent means, which is far from the emergency martial law declared by former President Yoon on December 3, 2024. The declaration of emergency martial law is an inherent authority vested in the President by the Constitution. It was the only solution to inform the public about the reality of anti-state forces aiming to destroy the nation and to conduct a legitimate investigation into the National Election Commission, suspected of systematic election rigging in various elections. The logic that even the President, with the highest authority, can commit insurrection to further strengthen and execute their power, as some leftists claim, is fundamentally flawed from the outset. Unlike the current Lee Jae-myung administration, there was no attempt by former President Yoon to forcibly dismantle the separation of powers. Furthermore, no casualties occurred during the emergency martial law, and it was fully lifted within approximately 3 hours after receiving the National Assembly's resolution, meaning there were no illegal actions. Moreover, consistent false testimonies from Kwak Jong-geun, the then Special Warfare Commander, are being revealed, and the Constitutional Court's decision to uphold the President's impeachment, citing procedural flaws in the emergency martial law, is being undermined by the belated release of CCTV footage of the deliberation process by cabinet members, and testimony from Moon Hyung-bae, the then acting Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, admitting that this was completely ignored in the ruling. These developments are proving the fictitious nature of the trial against the former President. This article aims to criticize the injustice of past trials revealed through the ongoing, fragmented trial process of the former President, as well as the intentional errors of some left-leaning judges, and to urge them to repent for their sins and make a difficult but just decision.

First, I would like to point out the abnormal issuance of arrest warrants for the President during the impeachment process immediately following the declaration of martial law, as well as for government officials and military leaders under his command. The National Investigation Headquarters (under the National Police Agency, with Woo Jong-soo as its head at the time) requested an arrest and prosecution of Police Commissioner General Cho Ji-ho and Seoul Metropolitan Police Commissioner Kim Bong-ho on charges of colluding in insurrection, based solely on the testimonies of opposition party lawmakers Kim Byung-joo and Park Sun-won. The Seoul Central District Court, under Presiding Judge Nam Cheon-gyu, issued arrest warrants on December 13, 2024, citing evidence destruction. Separately, Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who was under investigation for charges of participating in important insurrection duties and obstruction of the exercise of authority, voluntarily appeared before the prosecution on December 8, 2024, was arrested, and an arrest warrant was issued for him by Judge Nam on December 10. The reason for specifying the dates is to highlight that the National Assembly's impeachment resolution against President Yoon Seok-yeol was passed on December 14, after a second impeachment attempt, suspending his duties. These three defendants were arrested on charges of insurrection while the President was still in office. As stated earlier, they were arrested in haste, even though the President's charges of insurrection have not been proven even a year later. Moreover, their arrests occurred while the President was actively engaged in governance. The evidence cited to prove the insurrection charges is also absurd. The claim by leftists that the National Assembly was effectively sealed off to prevent lawmakers from entering has been proven false. CCTV footage confirms that while the deployed martial law troops guarded the main entrance of the National Assembly, lawmakers, excluding the general public, were allowed to enter after their identification was checked. It has also been proven that the troops did not use force against citizens who assaulted them indiscriminably. Furthermore, former Special Warfare Commander Kwak Jong-geun recently admitted in court testimony that his previous statement, claiming the President ordered him to drag out a lawmaker during a parliamentary session vote, was false. In response to questions from defense attorneys about the timing of his calls with the President, he stated that he gave the order to drag out the lawmaker on his own initiative, without any instruction from the President. Therefore, the claim that insurrection was attempted by sealing off the National Assembly to dismantle the separation of powers is fundamentally impossible. Nevertheless, the presiding judge handling arrest warrants at the Central District Court, treating President Yoon's charges of insurrection as a given, recognized the charges of collusion in insurrection and carrying out insurrection duties, and issued arrest warrants citing evidence destruction, which can only be described as an intentional error aligned with leftist claims or a malicious ruling that disregards the fundamental spirit of the Constitution. Moreover, the then-opposition Democratic Party, which narrowly passed the second impeachment motion against President Yoon, discreetly excluded the insurrection charges from the impeachment trial sent to the Constitutional Court, suggesting their serious concern that proving insurrection itself was impossible.

For reference, the Police Commissioner is under the President's command, and the head of the National Investigation Headquarters is normally under the command of the Police Commissioner. While the investigative independence of the head of the National Investigation Headquarters is acknowledged, arresting a superior in the chain of command based on charges of insurrection that cannot be established can be seen as exceeding authority and insubordination. Of course, in terms of investigation, the Police Commissioner and the head of the National Investigation Headquarters can be considered independent heads of agencies, but the fact that the investigation was pushed forward solely based on the claims of the then-opposition party, without proper proof of insurrection charges, could also be interpreted as an abuse of authority by the National Investigation Headquarters. This argument becomes more persuasive when considering that the current Lee Jae-myung administration is pursuing the dissolution of the prosecution service, an increase in the number of Supreme Court justices, a fourth instance of trial through the Constitutional Court, and the abolition of the crime of breach of trust, yet the current head of the National Investigation Headquarters is not investigating the incumbent President and National Assembly members for charges of insurrection, which would constitute actual rebellion against the state. In other words, while leftists, upon gaining power, concentrate all authority, create bad laws based on their parliamentary majority, and engage in acts of national betrayal through policies such as visa-free entry for Chinese citizens, preferential real estate policies favoring Chinese citizens, indiscriminate allowance of national pension and health insurance, and prohibition of anti-China rallies, the right-leaning President Yoon was forcibly impeached before completing his term and is now on trial for insurrection. It is a well-known fact that the trial is ongoing with the additional arrest and prosecution of seven military leaders, including Kwak Jong-geun, as previously mentioned.

Second, we can look at the case of Presiding Judge Lee Soon-hyung of the Western District Court, who issued arrest warrants for President Yoon's unlawful investigation. Although the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) did not have jurisdiction to investigate insurrection, ACRC Chief Oh Dong-woon repeatedly summoned President Yoon for questioning on charges of leading insurrection and abuse of power after the President's duties were suspended. On December 30, 2024, he requested an arrest warrant from Judge Lee Soon-hyung at the Western District Court, which was not the competent court, and obtained it on December 31. An attempt was made to forcibly execute it on January 3, 2025. However, due to strong refusal from the Presidential Security Service regarding the search and seizure of military and official secret locations, it was initially abandoned. On January 8, a new arrest warrant was reissued, and on January 15, the arrest of a sitting president during their term of office, a first in history, was accomplished. At this time, Oh Dong-woon concealed the fact that the initial request for search and seizure and communication warrants at the competent court, the Central District Court, had been denied. He then proceeded to request search and seizure and communication warrants again at the Western District Court, which was filled with left-leaning judges from the "Uri Law Research Society," engaging in what is known as "warrant shopping," a violation of Articles 114 and 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Later, on March 4, 2025, the prosecution conducted a search and seizure of the ACRC. On March 7, Judge Ji Gwi-yeon of the Central District Court ruled to revoke President Yoon's arrest warrant based on procedural irregularities. Subsequently, the prosecution waived its right to appeal, and President Yoon was released. Oh Dong-woon was reported by President Yoon's legal team on February 21, 2025, for forgery of official documents and abuse of power. However, no significant action has been taken since the prosecution's search and seizure on March 4. The problem here is that ACRC Chief Oh Dong-woon committed a violation by investigating President Yoon, who was still the incumbent president despite his suspended duties, even though the ACRC lacked jurisdiction to investigate insurrection. Presiding Judge Lee Soon-hyung of the Western District Court also continuously issued unreasonable legal applications favorable only to the left-leaning side (issuing arrest warrants twice and detention warrants), based on the premise that "emergency martial law is an act of insurrection," which has no possibility of being established. After the Constitutional Court's historically irredeemable ruling upholding the President's impeachment on March 4, 2025, and with Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the left, taking power as a result of a fraudulent election involving preliminary voting, the illegality and injustice of these actions by the ACRC chief and the Western District Court judges are being diluted by the hastily formed special prosecutor for insurrection, Cho Eun-seok, and the issuance of arrest warrants by the judiciary (Judge Nam Se-jin of the Seoul Central District Court).

Third, I wish to point out the injustice of the Constitutional Court's ruling on April 4, 2025, which unanimously upheld the President's impeachment. The Constitutional Court (acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae) acknowledged that emergency martial law is an inherent presidential authority but stated that it is subject to judicial review and that the National Assembly's impeachment power is legitimate. They did not include suspicions of election fraud in the conditions for emergency martial law, such as wartime or disaster situations, and deemed the failure to deliberate in the State Council and the delay in notifying the National Assembly as unconstitutional. Furthermore, they characterized attempts to blockade the National Assembly using military and police forces, confirmed by CCTV evidence, along with the search and seizure of the Suwon National Election Commission training institute, the suspension of National Assembly functions, and the martial law decree ordering media control, as an attempt to subvert the Constitution for the purpose of insurrection. The order to track the locations of the judiciary, including courts and the prosecution, was deemed an infringement on judicial independence. In short, this can be called an absurd legal argument and a contrived ruling to legitimize impeachment.

First, regarding the issue of election fraud, as revealed in the National Intelligence Service's audit results of the National Election Commission published in October 2023, it has been proven that election results can be altered due to exposure to external hacking. Moreover, if the courts refuse to issue search warrants for the National Election Commission through the prosecution, when the heads of the National Election Commission and its subordinate bodies are concurrently serving as Supreme Court and lower court judges, there is no way to verify online manipulation of preliminary votes through preliminary voting. Of course, in the Supreme Court's single-instance trial (Justices Cheon Dae-yeop, Cho Jae-yeon, and Lee Dong-won) regarding the invalidation of the election in Incheon Yeon-su B, the plaintiff's (whistleblower Min Kyung-wook) opinion was disregarded, and the burden of proof was placed on the powerless plaintiff who lacked any legal means, resulting in the dismissal of the parliamentary election nullification lawsuit due to insufficient evidence (July 28, 2022). By not accepting all of the abnormal ballots presented by the plaintiff as evidence, the Supreme Court justices exhibited a shameful behavior of predetermining the conclusion of dismissal from the outset. It is precisely on this basis that the declaration of emergency martial law gains credibility. When forensic examination of the election commission's computer servers is not permitted and searches are not conducted, it is difficult to obtain decisive evidence of election fraud, as long as the burden of proof lies with the complainant. We can only infer from statistical evidence, such as the law of large numbers, that widespread manipulation of preliminary votes has occurred, but it is a reality that this cannot be accepted as legal evidence.

If a specific political party (e.g., a leftist party) gains a majority of seats through election fraud, and the President is also elected from the left, the national crisis situation is exactly what we are currently facing. The increase in the number of Supreme Court justices, the Constitutional Court's ability to review cases as a fourth instance, the dissolution of the prosecution service, the control of police forces by Chinese public security, the lax discipline in the military (Lee Jae-myung recently made simultaneous changes to 30 key positions in the Joint Chiefs of Staff), not to mention the aforementioned preferential policies for Chinese citizens, and even President Xi Jinping's remarks encouraging the inflow of Chinese citizens as a solution to South Korea's low birthrate and aging population, are all occurring without hesitation. If this is not national rebellion, what is it? President Yoon's declaration of emergency martial law on December 3, 2024, ironically seems to have foreseen a national emergency a year in advance. In other words, the Constitutional Court's ruling, read by Moon Hyung-bae, which simply did not include suspicions of election fraud in the category of national emergency, is undoubtedly a malicious ruling that later justifies national rebels, allowing the entire country to be sold to the Chinese Communist Party. The various pieces of evidence they cited in their ruling are also below common sense and are pettily worded, setting logic in a one-sided direction and contriving the outcome. The assault on the martial law troops by pro-government citizens as seen on CCTV, the deliberation process in the State Council clearly revealed by the presidential office's CCTV belatedly submitted by the special prosecutor's team, and the fictitious nature of the attempt to subvert the Constitution revealed by Kwak Jong-geun's false testimony all convincingly prove that the eight justices of the Constitutional Court were criminals in the eyes of history.

Then, why has the judiciary (not the entire judiciary, but the left-leaning strata) become so corrupted? In my judgment, some have been directly recruited or threatened by the Chinese Communist Party and forced to issue rulings contrary to their intentions, while others have unhesitatingly parasitized the current power structure for their own personal gain. Regardless, it is lamentable that the judiciary, which should serve as the final bastion through just rulings in matters of grave national importance, has become so contaminated by the Chinese Communist Party and has emerged as a major player in the ruin of the nation. Are there truly no righteous judges in the Republic of Korea who would lay down their lives for justice? In fact, given the actions of the Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General, who instigated the abandonment of appeal in the first trial of Daejang-dong immediately after the passage of the bill to dissolve the prosecution service, in order to prevent the trial of the incumbent President Lee Jae-myung from concluding, it is somewhat embarrassing to only blame the judiciary. However, ultimately, the proper adherence to the principle of separation of powers and the just preservation of the judiciary remain the last means to prevent the Republic of Korea from sinking in the rough waves of communization.

Judiciary, awaken! And repent and make a difficult but just decision!

Kim Byung-joon, Former Professor at Kangnam University, Ph.D. in Business Administration, Current Co-CEO of Jagyomo