The special counsel on insurrection again sought a 10-year prison term in the appeals trial for former President Yoon Suk-yeol on charges including obstructing the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials' execution of an arrest warrant and infringing on Cabinet members' deliberation rights. It is the same sentence sought in the first trial. The special counsel asked the court to dismiss Yoon's appeal and to overturn some charges that resulted in not guilty verdicts at the first trial to guilty.
The Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul High Court (High Court Judges Yoon Sung-sik, Min Sung-cheol, and Lee Dong-hyun) held a closing hearing on Apr. 6 in the appeals trial on charges including obstruction of special official duties against the former president.
In court, the special counsel said, "The crimes in this case are of poor character because they used the status of the president and mobilized state resources to destroy the constitutional order and privatize public power," and added, "After the impeachment was brought, incitement to rally the base caused extreme conflict and division, and the aftereffects continue even now."
The special counsel also squarely took issue with the former president's courtroom attitude. The special counsel said, "Despite the duty as president to protect and enforce the Constitution, Yoon has consistently denied the crimes and maintained a noncooperative attitude toward the investigation and trial, and has shown no remorse," adding, "Even though subordinates who joined in because of him have been detained or become subjects of investigation and are suffering through questioning, he not only failed to acknowledge this but branded them as liars and shifted responsibility."
On sentencing, the special counsel also viewed the first-trial judgment as too lenient. The special counsel argued, "Crimes abusing the status and authority of the president fall into offenses for which recidivism cannot even be contemplated, yet treating the fact that this was a first offense as a favorable sentencing factor is an out-of-touch judgment," and, "Given the gravity of the crimes and their nature, the original sentence cannot be seen as appropriate." In addition, the special counsel asked the court to find guilty the charges that were acquitted at the first trial, including infringement of the deliberation rights of two Cabinet members, exercising a false official document in relation to the post hoc martial-law proclamation text, and charges related to false public communications.
The special counsel argued that the two Cabinet members who, after receiving notice to convene the Cabinet meeting, were unable to actually attend should also be viewed as having had their deliberation rights infringed, just like the other Cabinet members. Regarding the post hoc martial-law proclamation text, the special counsel took the position that because it was prepared and kept to be used advantageously for the former president during the impeachment trial and criminal proceedings, it should be evaluated not as mere preparation but as having been exercised.
The former president is accused of mobilizing Presidential Security Service staff in Jan. last year to obstruct the CIO's execution of an arrest warrant. He also faces charges of convening only some Cabinet members just before the Dec. 3 proclamation of emergency martial law and thereby infringing on the remaining Cabinet members' deliberation rights; drafting and then discarding a post hoc proclamation text after the lifting of emergency martial law; ordering the deletion of secure-phone call logs of former Defense Counterintelligence Command chief Yeo In-hyung and others; and drafting and disseminating false public communications for responses to foreign media.
In the first trial, the court found guilty and sentenced him to five years in prison for obstructing the execution of the arrest warrant, infringing on the deliberation rights of seven Cabinet members, drafting a false official document related to the preparation and disposal of the post hoc martial-law proclamation text, and ordering the deletion of secure-phone records. By contrast, it found not guilty on charges including false publicity to foreign media and some abuse of authority related to certain Cabinet members.