A Seoul court acquitted eight former military officers accused of participating in the December 3 martial law operation, finding that prosecutors had not proved they shared a purpose of subverting the constitutional order. The first-instance ruling covered two retired brigadier generals linked to a pre-declaration meeting at a fast-food restaurant and six other former officers accused over the deployment of troops to the National Assembly.
The Seoul Central District Court found former 2nd Armored Brigade commander Koo Sam-hoe and former Defense Innovation Planning official Bang Jeong-hwan not guilty of performing important duties in an insurrection. The special counsel had argued that they met former Defense Intelligence Commander Noh Sang-won at a Lotteria restaurant in Ansan about six hours before the martial law declaration and discussed organizing an operation to seize control of the National Election Commission.
- Court
- Seoul Central District Court
- Defendants
- Eight former military officers
- Verdict
- All eight acquitted at first instance
- Prosecution requests
- Prison terms ranging from five to seven years
According to reports on the judgment, the court concluded that the officers had not been shown to know the plan's detailed contents or to possess the required purpose of undermining the constitutional order. That distinction separated evidence of attendance, orders or assigned duties from proof that each defendant knowingly joined an insurrectionary plan.
The same ruling acquitted six former officers accused in connection with troop deployments to the National Assembly, including former 3rd Special Forces Brigade commander Kim Jeong-geun. The available reports identify all eight defendants as acquitted, while providing fuller reasoning for Koo and Bang than for each of the six deployment-related cases.
The court separated assigned duties from proven intent
The special counsel had requested prison terms ranging from five to seven years for the defendants, according to MBC. The verdict therefore rejected the prosecution's effort to treat the restaurant meeting and the military deployments as proof that the former officers knowingly carried out important roles in an insurrection.
The ruling drew immediate criticism from parties aligned with the governing camp. Democratic Party spokesperson Cho Kye-won called it a grant of immunity and argued that senior officers who discussed an organization for taking control of the election commission could not credibly claim ignorance of the plan. He also said the acquittals of officers involved in the National Assembly deployment risked establishing that subordinates could avoid punishment by citing superior orders.
Democratic Party spokesperson Cho Kye-won described the ruling as a grant of immunity and said it erased responsibility for the National Assembly incursion and election commission occupation.
Cho Kuk, head of the Rebuilding Korea Party's policy institute, wrote on social media that acquitting participants because they knew only their fragmented assignments could leave nobody but the leader punishable for insurrection. His comments linked the verdict to wider political criticism of the judiciary, while the court's decision itself turned on whether the required intent and knowledge had been proved for these individual defendants.