Former President Yoon Suk-yeol and first lady Kim Keon-hee stood in the same courtroom on the 14th. The two had appeared at court on the same day before, but this was the first time they faced each other within the same trial proceeding. It came about nine months after Yoon was taken back into custody in July last year and Kim was detained in August of the same year.
The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 33 (Presiding Judge Lee Jin-gwan) held a hearing that day in the case of former President Yoon and Myung Tae-gyun on charges of violating the Political Funds Act and questioned Kim as a witness.
The face-to-face encounter took place because the panel trying Yoon's case accepted Kim as a witness. Yoon's side argued at the first hearing that even if Kim appeared, she would refuse to testify, but the court kept her on the witness list, saying the parties must be given a chance to question.
The mood in the courtroom changed the moment Kim entered. Yoon, who had been sitting at the defendant's table speaking with his attorney, immediately turned his head toward the witness entrance when the court announced the start of questioning. Moments later, as Kim entered with support from a corrections officer, he did not avert his gaze.
Kim, dressed in a black suit and wearing a white mask, headed to the witness stand. Her hair was neatly tied back.
Kim, looking faint and walking somewhat unsteadily, took the stand and removed her mask herself just before the oath. Unlike the previous day, when she took off her mask after the court's remark while testifying in the case of former Minister of Justice Park Sung-jae, she removed it on her own before the oath without any separate instruction. Earlier, immediately after convening, the court explained that under relevant Supreme Court precedent, a witness's demeanor and facial expressions are also grounds for assessing credibility, and said mask-wearing would be restricted for witnesses.
Even after Kim finished the oath and took her seat, Yoon kept his eyes on the witness stand for a while. From the gallery, he appeared to show a faint smile with closed lips or give a slight nod.
Kim, by contrast, did not turn her head toward the defendant's table. She sat with her hands together, slightly bent at the waist, looking downward straight ahead for long stretches. She shifted her gaze to the screen only when materials were presented.
The questioning was effectively a repetition of brief exchanges. When the special counsel for Kim Keon-hee asked, "Are you the spouse of the defendant Yoon Suk-yeol?" Kim answered, "Yes." But to each of the more than 40 questions that followed, she said, "I refuse to testify."
The special counsel in turn presented KakaoTalk messages between Myung and Kim, call records, and materials related to polling, asking whether they had coordinated tailored polling favorable to Yoon during the presidential race, but the answer was the same.
When the questioning ended after about 30 minutes and Kim rose from her seat, Yoon again looked toward the witness stand. This time he showed a clearer smile and appeared to nod, as if greeting her with his eyes.
Kim left the courtroom guided by a corrections officer without ever looking toward the defendant's table. As the hearing wrapped up, Myung also bowed his head toward Yoon.
The hearing proceeded without filming. News outlets had applied to film in the courtroom, but the court rejected the requests, saying it did not meet internal criteria for approval.
From April 2021 to March 2022, Yoon is accused of conspiring with Kim to receive, free of charge, 58 instances of polling worth a total of 270 million won from Myung. The special counsel believes that in return, he exercised influence over nominations in the June 1, 2022 by-elections for National Assembly members.
Kim was indicted first in the same case, but at the first trial the court acquitted her, saying it was hard to find that Myung conducted the polling under their instructions and that it could not be concluded the results were provided exclusively to the couple. The court plans to hold closing arguments on May 12 and deliver a verdict in June.