The special investigation team, led by Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-seok, argues that the first trial court in Yoon Suk Yeol’s insurrection case failed to recognize crucial evidence. They claim the court disregarded the so-called Noh Sang-won notebook, despite objective proof of its creation timeline.
According to legal sources on Monday, the special investigation team submitted an appeal brief containing this information to the Seoul High Court’s Criminal Division 1, which specializes in insurrection cases. The submission was made on March 29 to the division presided over by Chief Judge Yoon Seong-sik.
In the first trial, prosecutors presented the notebook of former Army Intelligence Commander Noh Sang-won, who is serving an 18-year prison sentence, as evidence. They argued it proved Yoon’s December 3 martial law declaration was not a spontaneous action. However, the court dismissed the notebook’s credibility at that time.
The special investigation team contends that unless proven to be created after the fact, the standard practice is to estimate a document’s creation date based on its contents. Using this principle, they believe the notebook was started before October 2023 and completed around December of that year.
To support their claim, prosecutors point to specific entries in the notebook. These include details about military commander appointments, the schedule for upcoming congressional elections, and plans to detain certain politicians. They argue these entries align with actual events, such as military appointments in October 2023 and changes in the status of specific politicians in December 2023.
The team also challenges the first trial’s dismissal of the notebook’s credibility based on its discovery at Noh’s mother’s house. They argue this was not mere negligence but suggest Noh may have deliberately hidden the notebook there or simply forgotten about it over time.
In the appeal, the special investigation team aims to have the court reassess the timing of Yoon’s decision to declare martial law. The determination of whether this declaration was an impulsive action or part of a long-term strategy could significantly impact the sentencing in this high-profile case.