The appeals court ruling in the case over interference with the CIO's execution of an arrest warrant for former President Yoon Suk-yeol will be broadcast live. Among the cases indicted by the special counsel on insurrection, this is the first time an appeals ruling will be broadcast.
The Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Yoon Seong-sik, senior judge) said it will broadcast live the appeals ruling hearing on Yoon's charges, including obstruction of the performance of special official duties, scheduled for 3 p.m. on the 29th. The court will film the courtroom using its own equipment and transmit the footage to broadcasters in real time. This case was also broadcast during the first-instance ruling.
Yoon was brought to trial on charges of mobilizing Presidential Security Service staff last January to block the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials from executing an arrest warrant. He is also accused of convening only some Cabinet members just before the Dec. 3 proclamation of martial law to conduct a perfunctory review of martial law procedures, and of infringing on the review rights of Cabinet members who could not attend the meeting. After martial law was lifted, charges included in the indictment also allege he drafted and destroyed a false proclamation as if it had been signed by former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and former Minister of the Ministry of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun.
In the first trial, the court found Yoon guilty of the main charges and sentenced him to five years in prison. Both the special counsel and Yoon's side appealed, sending the case to the Seoul High Court.
At the sentencing hearing in the appeals trial held on the 6th, the insurrection special counsel team led by Cho Eun-suk asked the court to impose the same 10-year prison term as in the first trial. The special counsel argued that the first-instance court erred in fact-finding and misapplied the law regarding some charges it had acquitted.
In this ruling, the key issue is expected to be how the appeals court addresses the findings recognized in the first trial: interference with the execution of the arrest warrant, infringement of Cabinet members' review rights, and the drafting of a false proclamation.