[Reporter’s Notebook] Delayed Trials Prolong the 'Insurrection'

One Year After Martial Law: Gaps in Testimony and Growing Fatigue
Consistent and Timely Verdicts Are Needed

"It's already been a year... I don't remember very well."

This is the phrase most frequently heard these days while sitting in the gallery at martial law-related trials. Witnesses often say, "The situation that night is blurry," or "I don't remember the exact conversations." In the courtroom, where the truth about insurrection and martial law must be uncovered, time does not clarify the facts but rather obscures them.

One year has passed since the December 3 Martial Law. After the special prosecutor's investigation, the stage for these cases is now the courtroom. The trial for former President Yoon Suk Yeol, accused as the ringleader of the insurrection, has continued for nine months since its first hearing in April. In contrast, some cases have reached the closing arguments within a month and are now only awaiting sentencing. Although the cases are essentially the same, the speed and atmosphere differ entirely depending on the panel of judges. In this situation, it is difficult to say that "what happened that night" has been clearly established.

Time is not neutral. While the meeting minutes, text messages, and CCTV footage from the day of martial law remain unchanged, people's memories have faded. As more testimonies are filled with "I don't know," the defense can strategically exploit these gaps. Listening from the gallery, one feels not that the truth is coming into focus, but rather that the boundaries of responsibility are gradually fading. Delays are not merely procedural issues; they can function to dilute responsibility for the insurrection. Contrary to claims that the insurrection investigation is over, the legal reckoning for the insurrection is still not complete.

There are also structural problems. Judgments on whether martial law that day constituted insurrection, or who made which decisions that night, are divided among several courts. Charges of being the ringleader of insurrection, aiding and abetting, and engaging in critical duties are all handled in different courtrooms. The same martial law documents and videos are repeatedly shown in each courtroom. Only the faces asking questions and the defendants seated are different. While it is likely that the conclusions of the first verdict will be followed by the others, if different verdicts are reached, which one should the public accept as the truth? History may be divided not by the substance of the insurrection, but by the composition and pace of the courts.

As the trials have continued, the atmosphere in the gallery has also changed. Initially, faces were filled with anger and tension, but now they are marked by fatigue and resignation. Even outside the courtroom, many people are heard saying, "When will this finally end?" The "night in question," which should have ended, remains ongoing.

The phrase "justice delayed is justice denied" is no longer an abstract statement but a reality felt by those who are waiting. One year after martial law, the judiciary now faces the question of "how will this end?" A clear judgment based on law and evidence, consistent standards across different panels, and a pace that the public can accept are needed to bring closure to this case. Ensuring that we can truly say the night of martial law has ended-that is the responsibility the judiciary must bear now.

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