Former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's additional indictment suspension request denied... Detention hearing tomorrow

Two conflicting definitions

In June 2025, Korean society once again faced an age-old question. How far can power be justified, and should justice rely more on procedure or substance? Moreover, can the justification of national security temporarily suspend the rule of law? At the center of this inquiry is former Minister of Defense Kim Yong-hyun. Having led the Ministry of Defense under the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, he is now causing a stir in Korean society as he heads to trial for additional charges after being indicted earlier this year on charges of conspiracy to commit a rebellion. This additional indictment took place just days before the expiration of his detention period, and Kim's side protested, calling it an unreasonable indictment that disregarded the preparation time guaranteed by the special prosecution law, but the court dismissed this appeal. This case is not merely about the criminal responsibility of a former minister. It poses fundamental questions about how power institutions should function within a democratic order and serves as a significant test of how far the exercise of power can be permitted under the name of 'national security.' This article seeks to revisit the points of conflict between power and law through the Kim Yong-hyun case and explore the direction of justice we should aspire to.

Development and Meaning of the Incident

Former Minister Kim Yong-hyun was identified as a key figure in the investigation into 'insurrection conspiracy' charges at the end of 2024. The special prosecutor secured evidence that he contacted an unofficial organization within the military to conspire about the possibility of declaring a state of emergency in the event of a regime collapse, leading to his indictment. Subsequently, on June 18, 2025, the special prosecutor applied two additional charges against him and indicted him again. One charge was attempting to transfer a military internal communications device known as the 'bi-hwa phone' to the civilian sector, and the other was inciting the destruction of evidence by ordering the shredding of documents and computers in his official residence just before his retirement. As a result, serious crimes of 'obstruction of public duty by deception' and 'instruction of evidence destruction' were added as grounds for indictment. Kim's side protested, calling it a "clear violation of procedural justice." They argued that the '20-day preparation period before the initiation of an investigation' guaranteed by the Insurrection Special Investigation Act was ignored, constituting a violation of their right to defense. However, the court dismissed this, stating that "it is difficult to view the indictment as clearly illegal." This decision became a symbolic judgment, measuring what should take precedence between substantive justice and procedural justice, rather than merely a matter of legal interpretation.

The boundary between procedural definitions and substantial definitions

The core of this case ultimately lies in the tension between the form and content of justice. Procedural justice refers to the protection of the rights of the accused, that is, the guarantees of a fair trial and the right to defense as stipulated by the constitution. In contrast, substantive justice aims to reveal social truths and to condemn if crimes exist. The court placed more weight on substantive justice in this case. The special prosecutor indicted after completing sufficient investigations, deeming that there was urgency from a public interest perspective. This allows for the interpretation that 'responding to the seriousness of the crime takes precedence over procedural perfection.' However, such a judgment carries risks. The moment procedural legitimacy is compromised, the potential for arbitrary interpretation and abuse of power increases. Justice that neglects procedural aspects can ultimately undermine justice itself. The trust in law can only be secured through a 'just process.'

Power, Military, and Political Context

This incident serves as a case that shows how sensitive and dangerous the boundary of power between the military and civilians can be. The attempt to leak the 'secret phone,' which symbolizes military secrets, has already caused deep anxiety among the public, even though its intent has not been clarified. The seriousness of the issue is further exacerbated by the fact that it occurred at the pinnacle of power, with the Minister of Defense. Additionally, attempts to destroy evidence demonstrate that the internal information control mechanisms of the military may still lean towards concealment. This evokes the legacy of past military regimes and reaffirms that democratic control over the military is not complete. Political interpretations are also following. Some define this special investigation as political revenge. However, the moment the legitimacy of the investigation is replaced with a tool for political conflict, the law loses both its trust towards politics and its own dignity. The reason why the prosecution, special investigation, and judiciary must be independent from political power lies here.