Prosecutors have sought a 20-year prison sentence for Choo Kyung-ho in the case involving alleged obstruction of the vote to lift martial law.
The special counsel’s team argued that changing the location of the lawmakers’ meeting was an act intended to prevent participation in the vote.
However, the requested sentence is the prosecution’s request for punishment, while guilt or innocence and the sentence will be determined by the court’s ruling.
3-Line Summary
1. Prosecutors have sought a 20-year prison sentence for Choo Kyung-ho
2. The issue is the allegation that he obstructed the vote to lift martial law
3. A guilty verdict is not established solely by the requested sentence
The three changes to the lawmakers’ meeting location are the key issue
At the closing hearing held at the Seoul Central District Court on 9월 30일, the insurrection special counsel’s team asked the court to sentence Choo Kyung-ho to 20 years in prison. The charge applied is participation in a key duty related to insurrection.
The special counsel’s team’s central argument concerns the changes to the lawmakers’ meeting location during martial law on 2024년 12월 3일. The indictment alleges that Choo Kyung-ho, who was then floor leader of the People Power Party, changed the location of the lawmakers’ meeting three times before the National Assembly’s vote on the motion to lift martial law, thereby obstructing his party lawmakers’ participation in the vote.
The special counsel’s team explained that 151 lawmakers were needed to approve the lifting of martial law and argued that Choo Kyung-ho took the lead in tying up the participation of 108 People Power Party lawmakers in the vote. This is the special counsel’s argument for maintaining the indictment and does not mean that the court accepted it as presented.
The ruling parties and opposition parties clashed over whether it was a “natural result” or “political oppression”
Political reactions diverged sharply after the sentence was sought. The Democratic Party of Korea said that the special counsel’s request was a natural result of obstructing the vote to lift martial law and called for a stern judgment by the court.
The People Power Party maintains that there was no obstruction of the vote or coercion to abstain. People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyeok said he believed the court would find Choo not guilty in accordance with the law. The party’s chief spokesperson also criticized the special counsel’s requested sentence as a politically motivated prosecution, saying that no lawmaker had received an instruction from the floor leader not to participate in the vote.
The two sides interpret the same conduct in entirely different ways. The special counsel views the location changes and the circumstances at the time as indications of obstruction, while the People Power Party counters that they were ordinary party activities and that there is no direct evidence.
The requested sentence and the ruling are different procedures
The requested sentence at a closing hearing is the punishment the special counsel asks the court to impose. Accordingly, the 20년 cited that day is not a finalized punishment but the special counsel’s requested penalty, presented on the basis of the seriousness of the alleged offenses.
The issues for the court to decide in this case are whether the location changes were in fact acts intended to obstruct participation in the vote and whether they can be recognized as constituting the charge of participation in a key duty related to insurrection. Separate from the political dispute, the final conclusion will come in the court’s ruling.
References
Tags #ChooKyungHo #ChooKyungHo20YearSentence #InsurrectionSpecialCounsel #MartialLawLiftingVote #VoteObstruction #SeoulCentralDistrictCourt #ClosingHearing #ParticipationInKeyDutyRelatedToInsurrection #MartialLaw #PeoplePowerParty #DemocraticPartyOfKorea #SpecialCounselRequestedSentence