With former President Yoon Suk-yeol sentenced to five years in prison at the first trial on charges including obstruction of special official duties, the defense team said it would immediately appeal. The special counsel for insurrection has also begun analyzing the written judgment and started reviewing whether to appeal.
The former president's defense team said it would appeal after meeting with reporters immediately following the sentencing hearing for the "arrest obstruction" case, which was held on the 16th before the Criminal Division 35 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Baek Dae-hyeon).
The defense argued, "Before being an individual, Yoon Suk-yeol was the head of state, and an approach that imposes criminal liability while deleting the status, responsibility, and constitutional particularities can never be seen as the completion of the rule of law."
It added, "If this logic stands, no president will be able to make decisions in a crisis going forward, and acts of governance will at any time be reconstructed as crimes after the fact."
The defense also said, "Rather than judging the facts, the court accepted all of the special counsel's one-sided claims," adding, "This ruling ignores everything that came out through evidentiary examination, and we cannot accept it." It then said it plans to file the notice of appeal around early to mid next week.
Regarding the insurrection-dedicated panel that the Seoul High Court will operate starting Feb. 23, the defense said, "If we judge it to be highly unconstitutional, we will have to seriously consider even appearing."
The special counsel for insurrection, which handled the prosecution, is also reportedly reviewing whether to appeal. The special counsel said, "In connection with this sentencing, we plan to closely review the court's sentencing and some acquittal grounds through an analysis of the written judgment."
The first-instance court on this day found most of the charges against the former president, including obstruction of special official duties and abuse of power to obstruct the exercise of rights, guilty and sentenced him to five years in prison. However, it found not guilty on the charge of ordering the dissemination to foreign media of a government position containing false information (abuse of power to obstruct the exercise of rights), and on the charge of exercising a false emergency martial law proclamation bearing the prime minister's signature (use of a falsely prepared official document).