Former President Yoon Suk-yeol, indicted on charges of perjury in the insurrection trial of former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, was acquitted at first instance. The court found that Yoon's statements were not false recollections of facts but constituted a subjective assessment regarding the validity of the Cabinet meeting.
The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Agreement Division 32 (presiding judge Ryu Kyung-jin, senior judge) on the 28th acquitted former President Yoon, who had been brought to trial on perjury charges. The panel said there was "no proof of a crime." Earlier, the special counsel investigating the insurrection case sought a two-year prison term at the sentencing hearing last month.
Yoon was indicted on charges of giving false testimony when he appeared as a witness on Nov. 19 last year in the trial of former Prime Minister Han on charges including aiding the ringleader of an insurrection and engaging in essential duties related to insurrection. The crux of the indictment is that he testified, contrary to the facts, as if the plan to convene a Cabinet meeting existed even before former Prime Minister Han recommended it on the day martial law was declared.
When the special counsel investigating the insurrection case asked at the time, "Did former Prime Minister Han recommend convening a Cabinet meeting to give it a lawful appearance?" former President Yoon answered, "Cabinet members are not dolls brought in to create an appearance, and isn't that a question that reflects too much intent?" The special counsel viewed this answer as false testimony implying that former President Yoon intended from the outset to convene a Cabinet meeting.
The court reached a different conclusion. The court said, "Perjury is established for statements contrary to memory, and subjective evaluations or opinions are not subject to perjury." The thrust is that the key issue is whether how former President Yoon perceived the convening of Cabinet members at the time constitutes an objective factual statement subject to perjury.
The court stated, "The defendant's statement that 'from the beginning there was an intention to convene the members' is an opinion and a subjective evaluation about whether the gathering (of Cabinet members) had legal effect as a Cabinet meeting." It went on, "It is hard to see it as a statement contrary to memory about factual circumstances, so it is not subject to perjury."
The meaning is that former President Yoon's answer was merely an assessment of whether the gathering of Cabinet members could be regarded as a Cabinet meeting under the law, and it is difficult to view it as stating facts different from memory.
Immediately after the ruling, the special counsel investigating the insurrection case said, "We will review the written judgment and decide whether to appeal."
Former President Yoon has also been indicted on charges of being the ringleader of the insurrection in connection with the Dec. 3 martial law declaration, received a life sentence at first instance, and is undergoing an appeal trial. In the case stemming from allegations that in January 2025 he mobilized Presidential Security Service staff to block the execution of an arrest warrant by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, he received a seven-year prison sentence on appeal, and the case is now before the Supreme Court. The first-instance verdict in the case alleging he ordered a drone infiltration operation into Pyongyang is scheduled for June 21.