reference to date or time or meetings, although reference was generally
made to place.

6. (U) At the completion of the government's case, the testimonial
evidence against Col. Lee Kap Yong was extremely weak. Only one witness,
Lt. Col. Lee Pak Il, had testified against him and on cross-examination
had qualified most of his damaging remarks so that 4 motion for a finding
of not guilty or directed verdict would have seemed warranted. No such
motion was made, however. Counsel advised that this type of motion,
while recognized in ROK criminal jurisprudence, is never resorted to in
practice. He stated that in all trials which are contested both parties
put on their complete cases before the court adjourns for findings.

Procedural Highlights - 22 August 1961 (U)

1. (U) Col. Pak Sang Hun, one of the accused, was called to the
stand by his counsel. He was initially examined by his counsel, then
by the prosecutor, and lastly by the court. He remained on the witness
stand the entire day.

2. (U) The dignity of the court room was often disrupted during
the morning session by several of the judges attempting at the same time
to ask the witness a question or admonish him to speak louder. Each
judge would try to outshout the other in an attempt to secure the floor.
When one judge seemed more successful, the others would hold off their
comment until that judge had completed his remarks. The accused was
asked repeatedly to speak louder. This was a form of harassment by the
judges, because the interpreter, sitting behind the witness and at &
greater distance away from him than the court members, was able to hear
the testimony. The witness was kept on the stand all morning without
a recess. About two hours after the morning session began, defense
counsel requested a receBs on the grounds that his client appeared tired.
This request was denied by the law member, although the witness was
provided a chair shortly thereafter.

3. (U) The prosecutor objected to the accused providing a
narrative of his role in the revolution rather than responding to
pertinent questions by the defense counsel. The defense counsel
argued that this method of narrative was necessary in order for the
court to receive the fullsory. The law member overruled the
prosecutor's objection and told the accused to continue with his story.
During this argument between the prosecutor and the defense counsel,
one of the judges was engaged in some argument with the witness, and
there appeared to be much disorder in the court room. Despite the
ruling of the law member that the witness be permitted to give a
straight narrative of his role in the revolution, the chief judge
»,.ortly thereafter told the witness to shorten his story and not to
go into all the details.

4. (U) The prosecutor was extremely argumentative during his
cross-examination and frequently shouted his questions at the witness.
The defense counsel interposed no objection to this manner of examination.

= ia