Insurrection Special Prosecutor Urges Resumption of Former PM nominee Choi Sang-mok's Trial Stalled for 8 Months

The insurrection special prosecutor has urged the Supreme Court to swiftly resume the trial of former Economy and Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok, which has been stalled for eight months due to a judge recusal request. The eight-month period means the first-instance trial has effectively been halted. The Cho Eun-seok special investigation team, according to a Yonhap News report, issued a statement on the 8th calling on the Supreme Court to make a prompt decision.

Judge Recusal Request Brought the Trial to a Halt

Choi has been on trial in the first instance alongside former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and others over charges related to the December 3 insurrection. However, the situation changed when he filed a recusal request against the presiding judge—essentially asking that the judge be excluded on grounds of alleged bias in the case. Once a recusal request is filed, the judge in question may not participate in the proceedings until a ruling is made.

According to the special prosecution team, the court separated Choi's hearings from those of the other defendants after the recusal request. As a result, proceedings against Choi have been suspended for roughly eight months. Meanwhile, the other defendants, including former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, are awaiting a first-instance verdict on the 26th. The pace of the trials has thus diverged sharply among defendants in the same case.

Supreme Court Deliberation Also Exceeding Average

The authority to decide whether the recusal request is granted rests with the Supreme Court. The special prosecution team pointed out that Choi's judge recusal case has been under review at the Supreme Court for more than four months, longer than the court's average deliberation period for recusal decisions. Because the first-instance trial cannot resume until a conclusion is reached, the Supreme Court's delay is directly translating into a delay for the entire trial.

The special prosecution team expressed concern that the situation could undermine the search for truth. Prolonged proceedings can blur the evidentiary weight of testimony and erode the memories of those involved, placing a burden on the principle of trial-centered proceedings—the principle that judgments must be based on evidence and hearings conducted in court. The special prosecutor formally framed the side effects of the trial delay with the phrase "risk of undermining the search for truth."

A Delay That Clashes With a Defendant's Right to Trial

A recusal request is a defense right guaranteed to defendants under the Criminal Procedure Act. The problem is the potential for the system to be exploited as a means of delaying trial. Indeed, a single recusal request has stalled the first-instance trial for eight months, while the Supreme Court's deliberation on the matter has exceeded four months, drawing criticism of a "trial-delay strategy."

Legal experts analyze this as a structure in which two rights collide, since the right to a speedy trial is also a constitutional right. From the defendant's perspective, it is a matter of asserting the right to be tried by an impartial judge; from the special prosecutor's standpoint and that of the public interest, the cost of delaying the establishment of material truth is substantial. The special prosecutor's public call for a decision is interpreted as reflecting a judgment that this balance has tipped toward delay.

Outlook and Ripple Effects

If the Supreme Court rejects the recusal request, hearings in Choi's case will resume, though on a separate schedule from the verdict for the other defendants on the 26th. Conversely, if the recusal is granted, the presiding judge will be replaced and trial procedures will effectively have to be arranged from scratch. Either way, the timing of the Supreme Court's decision will be the key variable shaping the future trial schedule.

This case is significant in that it demonstrates just how long a judge recusal request can stall criminal trial proceedings. With pointed reminders that the social costs of delay grow with the gravity of the case, discussion may emerge within the legal community on institutional remedies, such as setting a time limit for recusal deliberations or expediting the process. Whether the special prosecutor's call for a decision will actually affect the Supreme Court's pace of deliberation, and what trajectory the severed trial will take after the verdict on the 26th, are the points to watch going forward.