Former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who faces charges including being a ringleader of an insurrection related to the Dec. 3 emergency martial law, asked the appellate court to refer a constitutional review of the relevant laws, but the request was rejected.
According to legal sources, the Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 12-1 (High Court Judges Lee Seung-cheol, Cho Jin-gu, and Kim Min-a) on the 23rd issued a decision to dismiss in part and deny in part the request by the former president's side for a referral to the Constitutional Court.
A request for a constitutional review referral is a procedure in which a court asks the Constitutional Court to determine whether a law applied to a case on trial violates the Constitution. If a court refers a constitutional review, the merits trial is stayed until the Constitutional Court issues its decision.
The former president's side is said to have taken issue with special provisions that assign second-instance trials for insurrection, treason, and rebellion cases to the Seoul High Court's panel dedicated to insurrection cases. The court, however, found no constitutional defect in those provisions.
The same panel on the 13th of last month also issued a decision to dismiss in part and deny in part a request for a constitutional review referral filed by former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun. At the time, the court held that cases covered by the special law require uniformity and expertise in adjudication, so exclusive jurisdiction may be granted to a specific court.
While ordinary criminal cases determine venue based on the place of the crime or the defendant's address, cases such as insurrection, treason, and rebellion—whose nature and impact are significant—may be designated for concentrated hearings in a specific court.
In the decision on the former Minister's case, the court said, "Given the nature of the case, there is a strong need to ensure uniformity of adjudication and to enhance expertise, procedural efficiency, and the public interest," adding, "When the place of the crime or the defendant's address is likely to span multiple locations, having a specific court exercise exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case is also permissible within the legislature's discretion."