The sentencing hearing in the case of former President Yoon Suk-yeol, indicted as the ringleader of insurrection in connection with the Dec. 3 martial law, began on the 9th. As the document evidence review and closing arguments stretch on, the special counsel's sentencing recommendation is expected to spill into the early hours of the 10th.
The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 25 (Presiding Judge Jee Kui-youn) opened the sentencing hearing around 9:20 a.m. that day for eight defendants in the insurrection case, including former President Yoon and former Ministry of National Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun. All eight defendants appeared, including former President Yoon, former Minister Kim, former Defense Intelligence Command chief Noh Sang-won, former Korean National Police Agency Commissioner General Cho Ji-ho, and former Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Commissioner Kim Bong-sik.
Former President Yoon entered the courtroom in a black suit, bowed to the bench, and headed to the defendant's seat. He was also seen glancing at the gallery and whispering with his legal team, including attorney Yoon Gap-geun.
In the morning session, former President Yoon stared blankly at the monitor and appeared to doze off with his head drooping and eyes closed. In the afternoon session, he repeatedly opened and closed his eyes, continuing to show a lack of focus.
◇ Delay in document evidence review pushes back final opinion and sentencing recommendation… attention on the sentencing request
After completing the document evidence review for each defendant, the court plans to proceed to the final opinion and sentencing request by the special counsel, the defense's closing arguments, and the final statements of the eight defendants, bringing the arguments to a close. However, with the document evidence review for former Minister Kim's side continuing into the afternoon, there was an outlook that the hearing would run long if the reviews for the other defendants were also taken up.
Former President Yoon's defense said the document evidence review alone could take about six hours. Given the special counsel said its sentencing opinion could take two to three hours and that all eight defendants must each give a final statement, there is talk the sentencing hearing could run into the early hours of the next day. Some also suggested this was a stalling tactic to set additional dates.
Attention is also focused on the length of the sentence to be requested for former President Yoon. Under the Criminal Act, the statutory penalties for the crime of ringleader of insurrection are death, life imprisonment, or life confinement. With Special Counsel Cho Eun-suk reportedly convening senior staff at or above deputy chief prosecutor the previous day and holding a six-hour meeting on the sentencing request, both the timing and the severity of the recommendation are drawing attention as the hearing runs long.
◇ Clash over document evidence review… presiding judge says "pros don't whine"
The first to begin the evidence review was former Minister Kim's side. Attorney Lee Ha-sang for former Minister Kim said, "Whether the conditions for declaring martial law—namely a national crisis—are met is for the president, who is directly chosen by the people, to judge," adding, "The prosecution has no such authority." He went on to say, "The prosecution (special counsel) is attacking the president based on the thinking of a certain party (the Democratic Party of Korea), which was the opposition at the time."
There was also a war of nerves over the evidence review procedure. When former Minister Kim's side said, "We don't have enough copies, so we will give them to the court first," the special counsel requested a change in the speaking order, saying, "We need to see the materials, so it would be better to proceed first with the defendants whose materials are ready."
When former Minister Kim's side countered, "We will proceed with oral arguments," the special counsel shot back, "What did you prepare?" The special counsel added, "We submitted our scenario yesterday, so you should have prepared," while former Minister Kim's side said, "We did it over a day."
When the presiding judge said, "The difference between a pro and an amateur is that pros don't whine," former Minister Kim's side raised their voice, saying, "Are you saying we whined?" The court concluded, "If you are not prepared, ask for understanding, and if the special counsel cannot accommodate, proceed with the defendants who are ready," after which copies were prepared and the procedure continued.