Legal Battle Over Indictment Legality in Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant Trial

Former Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Baek Woon-kyu (left) and former Blue House Industrial Policy Secretary Chae Hee-bong

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] In the trial of former Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Baek Woon-gyu, former Blue House Industrial Policy Secretary Chae Hee-bong, and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) President Jung Jae-hoon, who were indicted on charges of improperly interfering with the economic feasibility evaluation of the Wolseong Unit 1 nuclear power plant, a dispute arose between the prosecution and defense over the illegality of the indictment.

At the third pretrial hearing held on the 21st at the Daejeon District Court Criminal Division 11 (Presiding Judge Park Heon-haeng), President Jung’s defense attorney stated, "Our position is that the indictment violates the principle of indictment exclusivity," and pointed out, "Even if the content of such an indictment is later amended, the defect that has already occurred cannot be remedied."

The former minister Baek’s defense attorney also argued, "The indictment does not specify who the defendant pressured; it only states simply KHNP officials or Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy officials," and claimed, "Since the indictment lists content unrelated to the facts of the crime, dismissal of the indictment is appropriate."

The court also stated, "It appears that the final authority regarding the closure of the Wolseong nuclear power plant rested with the KHNP board members," and added, "There is a discrepancy as there is no mention of how the defendants influenced the board members."

The principle of indictment exclusivity requires that the prosecutor submit only the indictment to the court when filing charges, without attaching other documents or evidence, to prevent the judge from having preconceived notions about the case.

On the other hand, the prosecution argued, "The indictment was written only to clarify the elements of the offense, such as abuse of authority, in explaining the conspiracy relationship among the defendants," and claimed, "This does not violate the principle of indictment exclusivity."

On this day, the prosecution and defense also clashed over the list of evidence.

The defense attorneys said that the purpose of proof for the evidence list was unclear and that they would first determine whether the principle of indictment exclusivity was violated before expressing their opinion on whether to agree to the evidence.

In response, the prosecution rebutted that the purpose of proof for the evidence list was faithfully described.

The court plans to provide the defense attorneys an opportunity to rebut the prosecution’s claims at the fourth pretrial hearing scheduled for the 25th of next month.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.