A court hearing to decide whether to additionally detain former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was additionally indicted on charges of sending drones into Pyongyang to create a pretext for declaring the Dec. 3 martial law, was held on the 23rd.
In the hearing, former President Yoon spoke directly and argued that the general enemy-benefiting offense does not apply, while the special prosecution team for insurrection led by Cho Eun-suk stressed the need for detention, citing the seriousness of the crime and concerns about destruction of evidence and flight.
The Criminal Agreement Division 36 of the Seoul Central District Court (presiding judge Lee Jeong-yeop, Director General judge) conducted Yoon's detention hearing for about two hours starting at 2:30 p.m. that day. A detention hearing is a procedure in which the court hears from the prosecution and the defendant to determine whether there is a need to continue securing the defendant's custody, and the hearing that day was held behind closed doors.
Former President Yoon was said to have testified to the effect that the general enemy-benefiting offense does not apply. He reportedly argued to the effect that if measures such as drone deployment or "original-point strikes" had been taken, they would have been reported according to state decision-making, but he "was not briefed."
Former President Yoon was also said to have mentioned that he spoke for about 10 minutes in November last year with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump about the feces balloon issue. He reportedly explained during the call that the policy stance was "strategic patience," and that there would be patience unless additional casualties occurred due to North Korea's chemical, biological, or radiological provocations.
Former President Yoon's attorney also argued that the general enemy-benefiting offense does not apply and that there is double jeopardy. The special prosecution for insurrection's view that the drone deployment and original-point strike plans were acts to meet the requirements for declaring martial law would make them preparations for insurrection, the argument goes, and that must be contested in the insurrection ringleader case. It was also reported that they argued the indictment's entries regarding presidential orders are not specific, and that there is no risk of evidence destruction or flight.
The special prosecution for insurrection emphasized the need for detention based on the seriousness of the crime and concerns about destruction of evidence and flight. It was reportedly argued that releasing a former president could allow political influence to affect the trial and that there is a risk of tampering with co-conspirators.
The court asked both sides to submit additional briefs by the 30th. The result of the hearing is expected after the 30th.
Former President Yoon's detention period expires on Jan. 18 next year. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, the maximum pretrial detention for the first instance is six months, but if there is an additional indictment in another case and the need for detention is recognized, the court may issue an additional detention warrant after review, in which case the detention period may be extended by up to another six months.
Former President Yoon was indicted and detained on Jan. 26 on charges of being a ringleader of insurrection and was released on Mar. 8 by a court decision canceling his detention. He was then re-detained in July and indicted on the 19th of the same month, and at that time he was also charged with using the Presidential Security Service to block the execution of an arrest warrant by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials.
On the 10th of last month, the special prosecution for insurrection additionally indicted former President Yoon, former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, and former Defense Counterintelligence Command chief Yeo In-hyeong on charges of the general enemy-benefiting offense, and asked the court to issue an additional detention warrant.