The appeals trial over allegations that Yoon Suk-yeol, the former president, obstructed the execution of an arrest warrant by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) began on the 4th. As in the first trial, where he was sentenced to five years in prison, Yoon flatly denied the charges.
The Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul High Court (presiding judge Yoon Sung-sik, senior judge) held the first hearing in the second trial of Yoon's case on charges including obstruction of special official duties.
The special counsel for insurrection said of the appeal grounds, "The first trial court misunderstood the facts and the law and found some charges not guilty," adding, "The original sentence of five years in prison is unduly lenient and unjust." Earlier, the first trial found not guilty on charges including exercising a false official document related to the post-factum proclamation of emergency martial law and false publicity.
The special counsel also said, "Although Yoon committed the crime of undermining the constitutional order, Yoon flatly denied the crime and stuck to unconvincing excuses," adding, "Considering that Yoon did not issue an apology to the public, the original sentence is excessively light."
By contrast, Yoon's side countered that the original court's judgment on the major charges found guilty in the first trial was wrong. Yoon's side argued, "The first-trial court's recognition of the CIO's investigative authority over the alleged ringleader of insurrection contradicts the text and legislative intent of the CIO Act and is an unlawful interpretation."
They went on to say that because the CIO has no investigative authority over the crime of insurrection, the arrest and search warrants obtained by the CIO are null and void from the outset, and asked the court to overturn the original verdict and render a not-guilty ruling.
Given a chance to speak by the court, Yoon again flatly denied the charges. Regarding the allegation that only some Cabinet members were convened to give the appearance of a Cabinet meeting at the time of the Dec. 3 emergency martial law proclamation, Yoon said, "If the proclamation of emergency martial law became known, there were concerns about public unrest," adding, "There could have been public safety needs, so we tried to minimize troop deployment, and as a result we could not proceed with a regular Cabinet meeting."
On the charge of obstructing the CIO's execution of a warrant, Yoon argued, "It is hard to accept the first-trial ruling that we refused and obstructed the CIO's official duties." The point is that demanding the CIO leave after it entered the presidential office's security zone without prior authorization cannot constitute obstruction of special official duties.
Earlier, the Criminal Agreement Division 35 of the Seoul Central District Court in the first trial (presiding judge Baek Dae-hyun, senior judge) on Jan. 16 found Yoon guilty of charges including obstruction of special official duties and abuse of power to obstruct the exercise of rights, and sentenced Yoon to five years in prison. Afterward, both the special counsel team and Yoon's side appealed, citing misapplication of the law and unjust sentencing, respectively.