Former President Yoon Suk-yeol said on the 9th that he would continue the legal fight, including filing a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, after the Supreme Court finalized a seven-year prison sentence in the "CIO arrest obstruction" case.
The former president's legal team issued a statement after the Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Sook-yeon) upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing the former president to seven years in prison on charges including obstruction of special official duties and abuse of power and obstruction of another's rights.
The legal team said it respects the Supreme Court's decision but expressed deep regret that, from the perspective of the rule of law and the warrant principle, which are the foundation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court concluded such a serious case without sufficient review.
They argued that whether "compulsory investigation during the term of office" is permitted within the scope of a president's criminal non-prosecution privilege is a highly constitutional issue, saying the lower courts avoided a legal determination and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal while condoning serious legal premises.
They went on to say that it was a complete denial of the constitutional principle of statutory reservation that the CIO, which has no investigative authority over insurrection under the CIO Act, unilaterally labeled related crimes and forced the investigation. They also argued that it nullified Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which restricts searches and seizures of military secret locations.
The legal team said the case, which involves numerous highly constitutional issues, should have been referred to the Supreme Court en banc for in-depth consideration, and said the Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal on a tighter timeline than ordinary cases amounts to the politicization of the judiciary.
Regarding the Supreme Court's review process, they said it seriously infringed on the defendant's right to a fair trial, adding that the defense team plans to challenge the unconstitutionality of this ruling through constitutional adjudication procedures, including a constitutional complaint, to protect fundamental rights.
Because defendants are not required to appear at the final appeal, the former president did not appear in court that day. After the sentencing, attorney Yu Jeong-hwa of the legal team told reporters, when asked whether the former president had said anything separately, that there was nothing said separately and that if there is anything particular to convey, it would be shared later.
During the trial, the former president's side argued that, as a matter of law, only the police have investigative authority over insurrection, and that it was unlawful for the CIO to investigate the former president on suspicion of insurrection.
The Supreme Court said this case involved learning of specific related criminal suspicions after initiating an investigation into crimes by high-ranking officials, and said the CIO has investigative authority over the crime of leader of insurrection.
After the ruling, the CIO issued a statement saying various legal controversies arose over the CIO's investigative authority and procedures, and that the courts reviewed and resolved the related issues with consistent judgments from the warrant stage through the first trial, second trial, and the Supreme Court. It added that with this ruling, it understands that the judicial determination on investigative procedures and authority has been finalized.