Martial law actions reignite debate on insurrection criteria

[Anchor]

Today (12.12) marks the 45th anniversary of the military coup d'état initiated by the new military regime on December 12.

Many people are recalling this December 12 incident in light of the current martial law turmoil.

During this crisis, military forces showed a tendency to avoid physical confrontation.

As a result, there are opinions suggesting that their actions do not constitute a 'riot,' which is a requirement for the crime of insurrection, but legal experts argue that the blockade of the National Assembly under an unlawful martial law itself constitutes a riot.

Reporter Kim So-young has more.

[Report]

After the declaration of martial law, the martial law troops were deployed to the National Assembly.

There were confrontations with citizens, but they exercised maximum restraint in using physical force.

["Don't do it, don't do it. Step back, step back."]

They even bowed and apologized while withdrawing from the National Assembly.

["I'm sorry. I'm sorry."]

They did not prevent lawmakers from entering the main assembly hall.

This has led to opinions that the activities of the martial law troops in the National Assembly at that time do not meet the criteria for 'riot' as defined in the crime of insurrection.

In April 1997, during the trial of Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo for the military coup, the Supreme Court ruled that the requirement for insurrection, 'riot,' should be understood in a broad sense as violence or intimidation, and must be sufficient to disturb the peace of a local region.

The prevailing opinion in the legal community is that the mere entry of hundreds of armed soldiers into the National Assembly constitutes a riot.

[Park Eun-jung/National Assembly Legal Affairs Committee Member/Rebuilding Korea Party: "(The Supreme Court) acknowledged that the broad definition of violence or threats includes the act of blockading the National Assembly. Is that correct?"]

[Chun Dae-yup/Chief of Court Administration Office: "I understand that it was ruled that when an unconstitutional martial law is mobilized, that part can also be seen as a riot."]

Additionally, there have been testimonies that President Yoon instructed to "break down the door and drag out the people inside the National Assembly."

Even though martial law was lifted without major harm, legal experts suggest that this could still qualify as an attempted insurrection.

[Kim Seon-taek/Professor at Korea University Law School: "What kind of order was disturbed in the National Assembly? Nothing happened. Do we deploy the military to maintain order in the National Assembly? There is a National Assembly security force, and there is no reason to send in the military."]

President Yoon’s remarks today, questioning whether a "two-hour insurrection" could exist, have also drawn criticism from the legal community. Experts argue that the mere deployment of martial law forces constitutes the initiation of insurrection.

This is KBS News, Kim So-young.