National Security Office chief testifies Yoon mentioned 'emergency measure' in March last year
Former Minister of Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min dismissed the prosecution’s claim based on investigation records that then-President Yoon Suk Yeol had ordered him to cut off power and water to a list of media organizations on the night of Yoon's Dec. 3, 2024 martial law declaration, during the seventh hearing of Yoon's impeachment trial on Tuesday.
Lee, who resigned on Dec. 8, was one of four witnesses, which also included National Security Office chief Shin Won-sik, former National Intelligence Service Third Deputy Director Baek Jong-wook and National Election Commission Secretary-General Kim Yong-bin.
“The call I made to the fire chief (on the night of Dec. 3) was purely to ask for thorough attention to public safety, not to issue any instructions about cutting off the power or water,” Lee said, speaking from the witness stand.
According to the prosecution's indictment, Yoon handed a piece of paper to Lee during a meeting with Cabinet members prior to declaring martial law that instructed for power and water to be cut off at Kyunghyang Shinmun, Hankyoreh, MBC and JTBC as well as pollster Flower Co.
“If the president had given such instructions, considering the gravity of the martial law situation, I would have conveyed it as quickly as possible instead of delaying for over two hours before informing the fire chief,” Lee said.
Lee admitted to having seen the piece of paper, saying it had been on the table during the meeting that night.
The former interior minister further argued that while no Cabinet members explicitly stated their support or opposition to Yoon's plan to declare martial law, concerns were generally conveyed during the meeting.
“No one believed that the declaration of martial law was unconstitutional or illegal. However, there were significant concerns about whether the public would accept martial law being declared for the first time in 45 years, how it might impact foreign relations and the economy and whether the administration could withstand future attacks from the opposition party,” he said.
When asked by Yoon’s lawyers whether he had conveyed his intent to dissuade the president from declaring martial law, Lee said, “Yes.”
“(During the Cabinet meeting,) Yoon acknowledged the economic, diplomatic and political burdens being discussed, but he emphasized that the level of awareness, sense of crisis and responsibility felt by each Cabinet member was fundamentally different from that of the president,” the ex-minister said.
Lee, who has invoked his right to remain silent in previous investigative hearings held by the National Assembly's special impeachment committee, has argued that regarding the declaration of martial law to be an act of insurrection was a “misguided frame.”
Saying he believes it to be an incorrect interpretation to see the declaration of martial law as leading an insurrection, he argued it is a legitimate power granted to the president by the Constitution.
“I wondered whether other ministers from different departments understood these circumstances. I thought the president must have been deeply troubled,” he said.
Shin Won-sik, the National Security Office's chief, testified that Yoon had mentioned "emergency measures" in late March last year during a dinner at the presidential residence in Seoul, over eight months before the martial law declaration. Shin was defense minister at the time.
Saying that Kim Yong-hyun, the eventual defense minister who was then chief of the Presidential Security Service, National Intelligence Service Director Cho Tae-yong and other key military figures were in attendance where Yoon discussed the political situation, Shin said Yoon told them that the "military has to play a key role against this backdrop."
"I didn't think that (Yoon) was thinking martial law declaration, and I expressed my concern that either measure would not be appropriate," Shin said at the hearing.
Following the dinner, Shin said he told Kim to "be mindful and serve the president well," relaying it is "our duty as subordinates to ensure that the president doesn't make such remarks."
Ex-National Intelligence Service Third Deputy Director Baek Jong-wook and the National Election Commission Secretary General Kim Yong-bin both dismissed the possibility of “election fraud,” which Yoon referred as one of the reasons behind the declaration of martial law.
Yoon has been claiming that based on the NIS' investigation from July to September in 2023, which assessed the security of the Election Commission, found issues with the vote counting and management system.
Baek, a cybersecurity expert, said that he won’t comment on election fraud because “it is not something we examined.”
"Whether there was any trace of election fraud or not is outside the scope of what we investigated.”
Kim also dismissed the possibility of election fraud, echoing Baek’s view.
Meanwhile, the suspended president criticized the adoption of witness testimony as evidence for his trial, arguing there was a "discrepancy" between their oral testimony and the prosecution's investigation records surrounding his Dec. 3 martial law declaration.
“It is inappropriate to adopt these records as evidence and use them as a basis for fact-finding,” he said at the beginning of the hearing.
“The records themselves don't match up with each other well. During the witness questioning of Hong Jang-won (former first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service) and others, many must have felt that there was a discrepancy between what was written in the records and what was actually heard," Yoon said.
He argued that the investigation was not "consistent" in the way it was conducted.
“The investigation was not conducted systematically by a single agency such as the prosecution, military prosecution, Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials or the police. Instead, multiple agencies rushed in, resulting in a disorganized investigation mixed with records from National Assembly hearings,” Yoon told the justices.
He asked for the court’s careful review of the investigation records and testimony.
“I believe the justices may also share this view. While determining the value of the evidence is up to the court, adopting these records as evidence and reflecting them in fact-finding is problematic because the investigation was not systematic. I don't know, but they don't match up well, so please take a thorough look at that issue."
Following Yoon’s statement, acting Constitutional Court Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae said, “(The justices) will discuss it during their meeting.”
The final hearing of Yoon’s impeachment trial is Thursday. It is expected that the court may add more hearings for additional witness examination, such as by summoning impeached Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, but the court said that “nothing has been decided on adding more hearings” as of Monday.
It is likely the hearings will finish by the end of the month and the verdict will come out in mid-March.
ddd@heraldcorp.com
