Former President Yoon Suk-yeol was sentenced on appeal to seven years in prison, a heavier term than in the first trial, for charges including obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials. The appeals court reversed the first trial's acquittals and found Yoon guilty of infringing on the martial-law deliberation rights of the Ministers of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, and of ordering the drafting and dissemination of a false press guidance (PG) to foreign media.
The Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Yoon Seong-sik, senior judge) on the 29th sentenced the former president to seven years in prison on charges including obstruction of special official duties and abuse of power to obstruct the exercise of rights. The sentence is two years longer than the five-year prison term handed down in the first trial.
◇ Scope of infringement on cabinet members' deliberation rights expands from 7 to 9
The main reason the sentence increased on appeal is that the judgment changed on the procedure for convening the Cabinet meeting immediately before the declaration of martial law. In the first trial, only the infringement of deliberation rights was recognized as guilty for seven of the nine cabinet members who could not attend the meeting because they were not contacted for the convening. In contrast, it held that the charge of abuse of power to obstruct the exercise of rights did not apply to the Minister of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Minister of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, who received the convening notice but did not attend.
The appeals court ruled differently. The court found that the two Ministers were contacted at a time when they could not in practice attend the Cabinet meeting, and determined that the former president also infringed on their martial-law deliberation rights. The court said, "A convening notice to cabinet members should not end with merely making contact; it must ensure their realistic ability to participate."
The court emphasized that a Cabinet meeting is not merely a procedure to assist the president but a deliberation process prescribed by the Constitution and laws. It found that each cabinet member has specific authority to deliberate on agenda items of the Cabinet meeting, and that such procedural obligations are not relaxed even when the state's emergency powers are exercised, as in the case of martial law. Accordingly, the charges of abuse of power concerning the two cabinet members who had been partly acquitted in the first trial were also changed to guilty.
◇ False PG for foreign media also guilty… "Contrary to objective facts"
The conclusion also changed on appeal regarding the charge of ordering the drafting and dissemination of a false PG for foreign media. The former president was accused of directing the presidential office's secretary for overseas public relations, immediately after the declaration of martial law, to disseminate to foreign media a PG to the effect that "members of the National Assembly were not restricted from entering the National Assembly" and that there was "not the slightest intent to destroy the constitutional order."
The first trial ruled this part not guilty, saying it was difficult to view that the presidential office secretary had a legal duty to prepare press materials based on facts. The gist was that it was hard to conclude that the person was made to perform "a task without duty" as described in the crime of abuse of power to obstruct the exercise of rights.
However, the appeals court found that the PG's content ran contrary to objective facts. The court determined that the former president knew the PG's content differed from the facts and viewed the act of having the secretary for overseas public relations draft and distribute it as an abuse of power causing a person to perform a task without duty. Regarding this offense, the court noted that it "not only concealed wrongdoing committed during the process of declaring martial law but also provided foreign media with incorrect information about the legality of the martial-law declaration."
◇ Orders to block execution of the arrest warrant and to delete secure-phone records upheld from first trial
The charge that the former president mobilized officials of the Presidential Security Service to obstruct the CIO's execution of an arrest warrant was recognized as guilty, as in the first trial. The appeals court viewed the CIO's investigative authority and the court's issuance of the arrest warrant as lawful and found that the former president refused the execution of the warrant without just cause.
The court also weighed heavily that the former president sought to block the execution of the warrant by force rather than through legal procedures. Regarding the obstruction of the arrest warrant's execution, the court said it "not only privatized public officials into a personal guard to protect oneself but also raised concerns of physical clashes, making the conduct highly blameworthy."
The charge that, in preparation for an insurrection investigation, he instructed Kim Seong-hun, former Vice Administrator of the Presidential Security Service, to delete secure-phone communication records of figures including former Defense Counterintelligence Command chief Yeo In-hyeong was also found guilty, as in the first trial. The charge that he had a postdated proclamation drafted and then destroyed so it would appear that martial law had been declared under a document signed by former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and former Minister of the Ministry of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun after the lifting of martial law was also upheld as guilty. However, the charge of using a false official document remained not guilty, as in the first trial.
◇ Court: "Abandoned the duties of the president"… sentence increased by 2 years
The appeals court increased the sentence from the first trial after weighing the newly recognized guilty charges together with the existing guilty findings. The court said, "Despite bearing a grave responsibility as the sitting president at the time to uphold the Constitution, defend the nation and strive to enhance the freedom and rights of the people, the incidents committed after the declaration of martial law in this case further aggravated social disorder."
The court also said of the infringement on cabinet members' deliberation rights and the related post hoc departmental offenses that "in themselves they also constitute constitutional violations, so the degree of illegality is great." This is the first time an appeals ruling has come in the criminal case related to the Dec. 3 martial law among those the former president is facing.