Former President Yoon Suk-yeol received a finalized seven-year prison sentence in a case where he was indicted on charges of blocking the execution of an arrest warrant by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) in Jan. last year.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Sook-yeon) on the 9th finalized the lower court ruling that sentenced former President Yoon to seven years in prison in the appeal of his case, in which he was brought to trial on charges including obstruction of special official duties, abuse of authority, and falsifying and using official documents.
The Supreme Court said there was no error such as violating logic and rules of experience and exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misunderstanding legal principles, in the lower court's judgment.
◇ First finalized ruling 583 days after the Dec. 3 emergency martial law
The ruling came 583 days after former President Yoon declared the Dec. 3 emergency martial law. It is the first case related to former President Yoon to be finalized by the Supreme Court.
Because defendants are not required to appear at the final appeal, former President Yoon did not appear in court that day.
Former President Yoon declared the Dec. 3 emergency martial law, then lifted it, and in Jan. last year, after the National Assembly passed an impeachment motion, when the CIO moved to execute an arrest warrant issued by a court, he used Presidential Security Service staff to block it. The special counsel team for insurrection indicted him in custody in Jul. last year on charges including obstruction of special official duties.
He was also charged (abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights) with convening only some Cabinet members to merely create the appearance of a Cabinet meeting before declaring martial law, thereby infringing the martial law deliberation rights of nine Cabinet members who could not attend.
There is also a charge that, after lifting martial law, he fabricated a false proclamation to make it appear that martial law had been carried out under a document countersigned (signed) by former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and former Minister of the Ministry of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, and later destroyed it.
In the first trial in Jan. this year, the court found him guilty of obstructing the arrest and abuse of authority and sentenced former President Yoon to five years in prison. The Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul High Court, the insurrection-only panel led by Presiding Judge Yoon Sung-sik, handed down a seven-year sentence in Apr. The special counsel team's sentencing recommendation was 10 years in prison.
The second trial also found him guilty of ordering the delivery to foreign media of a press guidance (PG) containing false information, which the first trial had found not guilty.
Both the special counsel team and former President Yoon's side appealed the second-trial ruling, but the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals.
◇ Supreme Court: "The CIO has investigative authority over the crime of ringleader of insurrection"
The Supreme Court explained in court its reasons for dismissing the appeals. It accepted the second-trial judgment that found most charges proven, including obstructing the first and second executions of the CIO arrest warrant, infringing Cabinet members' deliberation rights during martial law, drafting and destroying the post hoc emergency martial law proclamation, drafting and distributing false materials to foreign media, and ordering refusal to submit Biho phone records.
Former President Yoon's side argued during the trial that, by law, only the police have investigative authority over insurrection, and that the CIO's investigation of former President Yoon on insurrection charges was unlawful.
The Supreme Court said, "The CIO accepted a complaint listing facts alleging former President Yoon's abuse of authority and insurrection, and initiated an investigation into the crime of abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights," adding, "It also specifically recognized the suspicion of the crime of ringleader of insurrection and opened an investigation."
It continued, "This case is one in which, after initiating an investigation into crimes by a high-ranking public official, specific related criminal suspicions were discovered," and said, "The CIO has investigative authority over the crime of ringleader of insurrection."
Former President Yoon's side argued that although the Presidential Security Service chief refused consent, it was unlawful for the CIO to execute a search warrant. The Supreme Court found, "The Security Service chief did not present specific grounds for refusing to execute the warrant," and ruled, "Because there is no recognized risk of harming the nation's significant interests, the refusal of consent is unlawful."
The case of former President Yoon's alleged role as ringleader of insurrection is in the second trial before the Seoul High Court's insurrection-only panel. In the first trial, the court sentenced former President Yoon to life imprisonment on the ringleader of insurrection charge.