Judge Ji Gwi-yeon [Yonhap News Agency composite image]

In his ruling on the 19th, Judge Ji Gwi-yeon contradicted himself multiple times, issuing a verdict full of inconsistencies.

He stated that an investigation into the President, which is inherently impossible, was possible. He also claimed that the prosecution and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, who do not have the authority to investigate rebellion, do have it.

Nationals who were hoping for President Yoon Suk-yeol's acquittal had to face frustration due to rulings like, "Although we do not have investigative authority in principle, we will proceed as if we do in this trial."

The highlight of this ruling was the conclusion that the exercise of emergency martial law powers constituted "rebellion, even though it is not rebellion."

Rebellion, even if it doesn't fall under rebellion

Judge Ji stated, "In principle, the President's declaration of emergency martial law itself cannot constitute rebellion and is difficult to be subject to judicial review," yet added, "It can be considered a crime of rebellion with the purpose of subverting the nation if the exercise of power, ostensibly under the guise of constitutional authority, was actually an act of force that could not be achieved through it."

If we look closely at this statement, it implies that since nothing was done through martial law, it should be viewed as an act of force, and this is rebellion. What on earth does this mean?

Does it mean that if martial law was declared, clear evidence of election rigging should have been found? And because evidence of election rigging was not found, it must be subject to legal judgment?

Furthermore, Judge Ji stated, "Even with emergency martial law, the National Assembly's authority cannot be infringed upon, nor can the essential functions of the executive and judiciary be violated. If emergency martial law is declared with this purpose, a crime of rebellion with the intent to subvert the nation can be established, even if it is an exercise of authority prescribed by the Constitution."

As is known, the martial law forces on December 12th did not infringe upon the functions of the National Assembly. What is the problem then? The judge speaks of the "purpose of martial law," for which there is no evidence, as if he had entered and exited President Yoon's mind like 'Gung Ye's mind-reading technique'.

Rebellion because the inner thoughts are unknown, even without evidence

He even refused to accept General Noh Sang-won's notebook as evidence, which the special prosecutor presented.

The ruling states, "The so-called Noh Sang-won notebook, etc., has an unclear creation date, some of its contents do not match the actual facts, and its appearance, form, handwriting, style, and content are crude. Considering the place where it was stored and how it was stored, it is unreasonable to consider it a notebook containing such important matters."

It also states, "Looking at what Defendant Yoon Suk-yeol said during several meals with Defendant Kim Yong-hyun, Yeo In-yeong, Kwak Jong-geun, and Lee Jin-woo, it is difficult to see any intention, conception, or plan being revealed. Rather, there is ample room to view it as mere complaints, outbursts of emotion, or expressions of frustration and distress."

Additionally, it states, "Considering the various measures taken after the emergency martial law, it is overly unprepared to have planned for a long-term declaration of emergency martial law. No specific evidence, data, or traces of plans after neutralizing the National Assembly can be found."

Despite this, the judge ruled Yoon Suk-yeol guilty of rebellion, stating, "Since the withdrawal of troops and the resumption of National Assembly activities were to be determined by the discretion of Defendant Yoon Suk-yeol and others, given these circumstances, it is sufficiently plausible to assume that it was intended to obstruct or paralyze National Assembly activities for a considerable period."

If it was not rebellion, there would be no neutralization of the National Assembly and no plans for after its neutralization. However, the court's explanation is that precisely because the withdrawal of troops and the resumption of National Assembly activities were to be determined by President Yoon's discretion, it constitutes rebellion. This is mind-reading of the highest order.

So, does this mean that if there had been proper conspiracy for rebellion and meticulous planning for the aftermath, it would not be a guilty verdict? The reason for the guilty verdict is the lack of evidence of conspiracy and insufficiently meticulous planning!

Where is the legal adage, "Do not make an innocent person a criminal"?

"Type I error" in statistical hypothesis testing is an error where something true is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is adopted. In court, this corresponds to convicting an innocent person.

"Type II error" is an error where something false is not rejected and is adopted, corresponding to acquitting a guilty person.

Neither error should be allowed, but Type I error is considered more fatal. There is a common adage in the legal profession: "Even if one guilty person escapes, an innocent person should not be made a criminal."

Convicting an innocent person not only leads to the ruin of an individual's life but also incurs enormous social costs.

To which category does this trial belong? Was it a trial conducted under rational judgment, free from any errors? I want to ask Judge Ji Gwi-yeon and the rest of the court once again.

Reporter Im Yo-hee