hankyoreh

On Feb. 3, prosecutors requested that Unified Progressive Party (UPP) lawmaker Lee Seok-ki, who is charged with conspiring to overthrow the government, be sentenced to 20 years in prison and that he be barred from running for political office for 10 years. The prosecutors also demanded heavy sentences from the other six people who are charged in the case.

This comes about five months after the investigation into the case was made public with the raid on the suspects’ homes and offices on Aug. 28, 2013. Both prosecutors and defense put up a good fight during the four months of the first trial, but the National Intelligence Service (NIS) seized the advantage in the court of public opinion by releasing the transcript of Lee and his colleagues’ secret meeting in Aug. 2013. Looking back over the way the case has been handled, it is doubtful whether it is even possible for a decision to be made that is strictly based on the legal facts of the case.

The main question in the trial is whether the revolutionary organization known as “RO” actually existed, and whether it had taken concrete steps to prepare for an insurrection. The key evidence offered by the prosecutors is the transcripts of two meetings (held on May 10 and May 12, 2013), the testimony of an informer surnamed Lee, recordings of conversations with two other individuals, and material seized during the raids. Under the assumption that the two meetings in May were secret gatherings of the so-called RO, the prosecutors argue that the defendants plotted an armed insurrection at those meetings, which would have involved destroying the logistics base in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province.

However, the lawyers for the defendants dispute this, arguing that the meetings were no more than political lectures held by the Gyeonggi Province chapter of the UPP. They point out that the meetings took place after the crisis of inter-Korean tensions had largely been defused. The tensest moment of the crisis was when North Korea scrapped the armistice agreement that ended combat in the Korean War and the US dispatched F-22 stealth fighters to the Osan Air Base.

The most controversial part of the process is the transcript of the meeting that took place on May 12 in Seoul’s Hapjeong neighborhood. At that meeting, a number of bizarre, anachronistic expressions were used, with speakers referring to the “barrel of a gun” philosophy and electricity transmission towers and talking about blowing up oil storage tanks in Pyeongtaek. In a different transcript, speakers refer to North Korean leaders using honorific expressions such as “the Great Leader” and “the Great General”.

The legal team for the defendants counters that the transcript cannot be trusted since it was altered in 272 places and insists that the meetings were part of an anti-war, pacifist movement intended to bring about a permanent inter-Korean peace treaty.

However, there are some parts of the transcript that seriously undermine the credibility of the defense’s claims. That being said, there is not enough concrete evidence to conclude that the defendants were plotting an insurrection.

In the words of a former North Korean agent who stood as a witness for the prosecutors, “130 people coming together in one place is not consistent with what we know of secret organizations.” Not only that, but it is hard to imagine hearing the sound of children crying at the scene where a serious insurrection is being plotted.

The hundreds of errors that were found in the transcript are convincing evidence that the investigation of this case was not handled properly. Before it brought this case to light, the NIS had been backed into a corner because of allegations that it had interfered in the 2012 presidential election. If the NIS accused the defendants of being North Korean agents in order to distract from its own problems, it was truly playing with fire. The judges should not be distracted by attempts to try the case in the court of public opinion. Instead, they must make their decision carefully, firmly based on the evidence, according to their conscience and the law.

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]