Former President Yoon Suk-yeol's side, sentenced to five years in prison at the first trial on charges including obstructing an arrest by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), criticized the court's ruling as "the collapse of the rule of law with the law having vanished, nothing but political logic."
Yoon's defense team said in a statement distributed on the 17th, "Trials must be decided by evidence, law, and statutory elements, not by political or social mood," adding, "Only when these principles are observed can the judiciary's independence and trust be maintained, and the outcome of the ruling be accepted."
The point is that the first trial court handed down a guilty verdict based on public opinion or social perception, not legal principles. The defense repeated arguments it had made in court and explained its objections to the court's guilty finding.
First, it argued that the CIO has no investigative authority over insurrection. Because the CIO Act defines the CIO's investigative scope as job-related crimes and corruption crimes by high-ranking officials and related crimes, expanding its authority to investigate insurrection by using the abuse of authority investigation as a hook was an unlawful exercise of power.
It also argued that the court lacked legal grounds to exclude the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act when issuing the arrest warrant, and that unlawful acts occurred during execution of the warrant, including the CIO passing through locations not listed in the warrant without authorization.
It explained that the deliberation authority of Cabinet members cannot be regarded as a right protected under the Criminal Act's offense of abuse of authority by interfering with the exercise of rights, and that it was improper in itself that the trial on obstructing arrest concluded even before the "main line" insurrection ringleader charge was adjudicated.
The defense said, "Even in matters requiring strictness in elements and procedure, the court abbreviated or avoided the grounds for its judgment," adding, "The judiciary needs to ask itself whether it faithfully carried out the duties entrusted to it."
Earlier, the Criminal Agreement Division 35 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Baek Dae-hyeon) sentenced former President Yoon to five years in prison on the 16th for charges including obstructing the performance of special official duties and abuse of authority by interfering with the exercise of rights after he was indicted and detained. Previously, special counsel team for insurrection Cho Eun-suk sought a 10-year prison term. Yoon's side said it would appeal immediately after the sentencing. The special counsel team also signaled an appeal, saying it would "carefully review the sentencing and some acquittal grounds."