On the 18th, the National Assembly urged the Constitutional Court to make a swift decision to remove President Yoon Suk-yeol, calling the emergency martial law of December 3 a "serious constitutional violation" during the ninth hearing of the impeachment trial. The president's side countered that it was a "legal and peaceful martial law with proper procedures and requirements."
On this day, the National Assembly and President Yoon's side presented their positions regarding witness testimonies and evidence submitted during the first to eighth hearing dates. Both sides spoke for about 2 hours and 10 minutes each. President Yoon did not attend the hearing on this day.
Kim Yi-soo, a lawyer representing the National Assembly, said, "The respondent (President Yoon) is betraying the trust of the people he received years ago in a way that can no longer be redeemed," adding, "A decision to remove the respondent must be made swiftly." Kim noted, "The declaration of emergency martial law is a forbidden act that no president has dreamed of, the worst act of constitutional destruction," and emphasized, "The respondent must be held accountable to ensure that such an event does not happen again."
The National Assembly also stated, "From the perspective of future constitutional protection, the respondent's actions are serious constitutional violations and acts of betrayal of the people's trust," and asserted, "In terms of democracy, rule of law, constitutional protection, as well as the freedom and safety of the people, it is appropriate that (President Yoon) be removed."
On the other hand, President Yoon's legal team argued for the legitimacy and legality of the emergency martial law.
The representative team for President Yoon stated, "The declaration of emergency martial law was a legal and peaceful martial law that followed proper procedures and requirements, minimized the mobilization of the military, and excluded armed forces," noting, "It was a public appeal martial law aimed at overcoming the chaos due to the rampage of the major opposition party that hindered the power and caused national confusion."
Furthermore, Song Jin-ho, a lawyer representing President Yoon, stated, "There were no prior preparations, plans, troop movements, or blockades to the extent of obstructing the legislature, and any blockades were judged by former Korean National Police Agency Administrator Jo Ji-ho himself, aimed at preventing safety accidents and maintaining order." He continued, "There were also no instructions to 'remove the committee members,' and the president never ordered anyone to 'arrest politicians.'"
However, President Yoon's side stated, "We will provide the final argument at the next hearing date." President Yoon arrived at the Constitutional Court around 12:29 p.m. but returned to the detention center without attending the hearing.
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court will hold the 10th hearing of President Yoon's impeachment trial on the 20th at 3 p.m. The hearing, originally scheduled for 2 p.m., was pushed back by one hour at President Yoon's request. During the 10th hearing, witness testimonies from Prime Minister Han Duck-soo (3 p.m.) and former National Intelligence Service Deputy Director Hong Jang-won (5 p.m.) are expected.
It remains uncertain whether the testimony of former Korean National Police Agency Administrator Jo Ji-ho, who was chosen as a witness by both parties, will take place. The Constitutional Court has issued a subpoena for the former Administrator at the request of President Yoon's side, but Jo submitted a notice of non-appearance at 4:54 p.m. on the same day.