The appeals trial on former President Yoon Suk-yeol's alleged role as ringleader of an insurrection was halted from the first hearing. Following Yoon, the legal teams for former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, former Defense Intelligence Command chief Noh Sang-won, and former 3rd Army Command military police chief Kim Yong-gun also filed motions to recuse the panel.
The Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 12-1 (High Court Judges Lee Seung-chul, Cho Jin-gu and Kim Min-a) said on the 14th at the first hearing in the insurrection case involving former President Yoon and others, "Since former President Yoon's side has filed a motion to recuse the panel, we will sever the proceedings and set a court hearing date later."
The court held off proceeding only with Yoon's case among the eight defendants. Neither Yoon nor his defense team appeared in court that day.
The trial again stopped over how to handle former Minister Kim's request to refer a constitutional review. The court said it had dismissed or rejected the previous day the request from Kim's side to refer a constitutional review related to the Special Insurrection Panel Act.
In response, former Minister Kim's attorney asked for time to consider filing a motion to recuse, saying it was inappropriate for the special insurrection panel to judge the constitutionality of the Special Insurrection Panel Act. After a five-minute recess, former Minister Kim, former commander Noh, and former chief Kim all filed recusal motions. Half of the eight defendants filed to recuse the same panel.
The special counsel for insurrection asked the court to dismiss immediately. The special counsel said, "It is clear that the oral and written recusal requests made in court today are for the purpose of delaying the proceedings," and asked the court to "firmly issue a summary dismissal." A summary dismissal is a procedure in which the same panel dismisses a motion immediately when it is clearly for delay or fails to meet procedural requirements.
The court did not dismiss immediately. The court said, "We also regret the situation, but at this stage we cannot say the purpose of delaying the proceedings is clear, so we will not issue a summary dismissal," adding, "We think organizing matters first and proceeding would be better for procedural clarity."
Afterward, former Minister Kim, former commander Noh, and former chief Kim left the courtroom. The court may also organize the procedure by severing their cases and setting court hearing dates again.
When a recusal motion is filed against a judge, the resumption of those defendants' trials is decided by a separate panel. Former President Yoon's recusal case was assigned to the Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 1 (Presiding Judge Yoon Sung-sik, senior judge).
Under the Criminal Procedure Act, when a motion to recuse a judge is filed, the merits trial is suspended unless it is clearly for delay or the filing procedure is improper. If the motion is granted, the panel changes; if it is denied, the existing panel continues the hearing.
Accordingly, for the time being, the appeals trial will proceed focusing on the remaining defendants, including former Korean National Police Agency Commissioner Cho Ji-ho, former Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Commissioner Kim Bong-shik, former National Assembly Guard Chief Mok Hyun-tae, and former investigation planning and coordination officer Yoon Seung-young.
Yoon's side filed a recusal motion the previous day against all three judges of the Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 12-1. They argued the panel effectively premised its decision on Yoon's alleged role as ringleader of an insurrection in the appeals trial on July 7 concerning former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo's charge of engaging in important duties related to insurrection.
Yoon's side argued, "By pronouncing the verdict in former Prime Minister Han's case, acknowledging former President Yoon's alleged crimes and publicly announcing them, the judges formed a bias and preconceived notions based on a distorted perception even before any dispute over the charges in Yoon's appeal," adding that this "constitutes the ground for recusal: 'when a judge is likely to conduct an unfair trial.'"
The defense also took issue with the fact that the insurrection-related cases were not consolidated or decided simultaneously. Yoon's side said, "Although the elements of the insurrection charge can be contested only in former President Yoon's case, a ruling came first in a case where this issue was not addressed, which is influencing Yoon's case, and then influencing other cases again, creating a vicious cycle."