Special Prosecutor Seeks Perjury Probe for Ex-Defense Minister Over Martial Law Testimony

A significant development has emerged in the ongoing legal proceedings related to martial law, as a special prosecutor's team has formally requested a new investigation into former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun on charges of perjury. This request centers on Kim's testimony during the appeal trial of former President Yoon Suk-yeol, where he stated that both the president and himself had intended to convene a State Council meeting concerning the imposition of martial law from the outset. This assertion directly contradicts the findings and understanding of the special prosecutor's team.

“

We have requested the comprehensive special prosecutor's team to investigate the testimony that could be considered perjury in the process of maintaining the indictment for the defendant Yoon Suk-yeol's obstruction of special duties, etc.

The core of the perjury allegation lies in the discrepancy regarding the intention to hold a State Council meeting. The special prosecutor's team contends that former President Yoon Suk-yeol had no intention of convening such a meeting. Instead, they argue that the proposal to hold the State Council meeting originated from former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. This distinction is crucial, as it pertains to the procedural legitimacy and the former president's alleged actions surrounding the martial law declaration.

“

The testimony in question is that Minister Kim stated, 'The President and I intended to convene a State Council meeting from the beginning.'

This development is particularly noteworthy given that the first-instance court, which sentenced former President Yoon to life imprisonment for leading the rebellion, also concluded that the State Council meeting was convened at the suggestion of Han Duck-soo. The special prosecutor's team had previously indicted Yoon himself on similar charges of aiding rebellion in December. The testimony in question, given by Yoon in November during Han's trial for aiding rebellion, where Yoon stated that a State Council meeting is naturally required for declaring martial law and that he believed the necessary conditions should be met, further complicates the narrative and highlights the conflicting accounts surrounding these critical events.

“

The special prosecutor's team believes that President Yoon had no intention of convening a State Council meeting, and it was convened at the suggestion of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo.

From the perspective of a South Korean news outlet covering this story, the focus is on the legal ramifications and the potential impact on the ongoing trials. The request for a perjury investigation into a former minister, based on testimony related to the actions of a former president, underscores the gravity of the situation and the meticulous scrutiny being applied to the events surrounding the martial law declaration. It raises questions about accountability, the accuracy of testimonies, and the integrity of the legal process in high-profile political cases.

“

It is a natural fact that a State Council meeting is necessary for the declaration of martial law.