Yoon Gap-geun Holds Press Conference on the 25th
Court Denies Prosecution's Request to Extend Detention Period
"Due Process Ignored... CIO Conducted Illegal Investigations"
Yoon Gap-geun, the legal representative of President Yoon Seok-yeol, is attending the 4th hearing of President Yoon Seok-yeol's impeachment trial held at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 23rd, responding to questions from the press. January 23, 2025. Photo by Joint Press Corps
On the 25th, Yoon Gap-geun, lawyer for President Yoon Seok-yeol, stated, "The prosecution must immediately release the president and promptly begin investigating the illegal acts of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) regarding charges such as treason and violation of the Military Secrets Protection Act."
At 4:30 p.m. that day, Lawyer Yoon held a press conference at SpaceShare Gangnam Station Center in Seocho-gu, Seoul, asserting, "What the prosecution should be doing now is not reapplying for an extension of the detention warrant, which is unprecedented."
The previous day, the court denied the prosecution's request to extend President Yoon's detention period. The court cited the intent of Article 26 of the CIO Act, which separates investigation and prosecution and applies this separation between the CIO and the prosecution office. However, the prosecution expressed that it could not accept this ruling.
Lawyer Yoon argued that President Yoon's rights, including the right to rebuttal, were not guaranteed. He criticized, "As emphasized in Article 12 of the Constitution, due process in criminal procedures cannot be overemphasized for the protection of human rights. However, the CIO, which has degenerated into a political investigation agency for the opposition party, has ignored the due process prescribed by law against the constitutional institution of the president and has conducted numerous illegal investigations."
He further emphasized, "From the outset, the CIO's investigation itself was illegal and null and void. According to our Constitution, no institution in the Republic of Korea can investigate a sitting president for abuse of power."
He added, "In cases where investigation of the president is possible, such as treason, only the police have investigative authority. Nevertheless, the CIO justified its investigation of treason charges, for which it has no authority, by using the investigation of the president's abuse of power, which it was never authorized to investigate, as a stepping stone."
He continued, "The subsequent arrest of the president by the CIO was itself a complete act of treason. The CIO formed a coordination body called the Joint Investigation Headquarters, which has no legal basis, and despite lacking investigative command authority, mobilized thousands of police riot squad members," he stressed.
Yoon Gap-geun, the legal representative of President Yoon Seok-yeol, is attending the third hearing of President Yoon Seok-yeol's impeachment trial held at the Constitutional Court courtroom in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 21st, responding to reporters' questions. Lawyer Yoon claimed, "The CIO brutally trampled on the president's human rights. They restricted visits from ordinary people, including family members, as if to vent their anger, and also prohibited correspondence with the outside. Even though the right to remain silent was already notified, they continuously threatened forced summons and even obstructed the president's right to defend himself in the Constitutional Court."
He added, "Eventually, when they realized they could do nothing, they hastily transferred the case to the prosecution. Last night, the Seoul Central District Court's refusal to extend the prosecution's detention period request was at least the last vestige of dignity for our courts," he noted.
Lawyer Yoon also stated, "The attempt to detain the president on charges of treason and prevent him from properly exercising his defense rights, then remove him through impeachment proceedings, is still ongoing. The Constitutional Court, citing the need to quickly stabilize the chaotic situation, insisted on holding hearings twice a week, creating circumstances that make it difficult for the president to exercise his defense rights," he emphasized.
He continued, "With the 2020 amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, even suspect interrogation records prepared by prosecutors cannot be used as evidence in court if denied by the party involved. Yet, the Constitutional Court is using such records as evidence in the impeachment trial simply because a lawyer participated during the investigation," he added.
Lawyer Yoon claimed that the Constitutional Court also ignored the Criminal Procedure Act, which designates consolidated hearing dates to hear the parties' opinions. He argued that the court did not consider it a valid reason for disqualification that the spouse of a constitutional court justice was the chairman of a foundation where the defense attorney appeared.
He raised his voice, saying, "Emphasizing only speedy trials ultimately leads to hasty judgments. Conversations between the president, cabinet members, and generals are best understood by the parties involved, so the president should personally argue and clarify the facts. However, sufficient preparation time is not being given to the president and his legal team."
He appealed to democratic values, stating, "To force the president, who holds the greatest democratic legitimacy elected by the entire nation, to step down through brief arguments and hearings is an unconstitutional act by the Constitutional Court, which is a designated power, to overthrow the elected power of the president."
Yoon Gap-geun, the lawyer representing President Yoon Suk-yeol, is attending the 'Impeachment Trial Hearing of President Yoon Suk-yeol' held at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the 14th, and is stating his position to the press. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung
He also argued that judicial procedures are being applied unfavorably to President Yoon compared to opposition figures such as Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party, and former leader of the Innovation Party, Cho Kuk. He pointed out, "Despite the simple issues in the Public Official Election Act case against Lee Jae-myung, the mandatory trial period stipulated in Article 270 of the Public Official Election Act was greatly exceeded, and there is no prospect of when other cases will conclude their first trials. The defendant is being given endless opportunities to exercise their defense rights."
He continued, "Former leader Cho Kuk was not detained despite a prison sentence in the second trial and was able to found a political party and become a member of the National Assembly. Other ongoing impeachment cases at the Constitutional Court also have unspecified charges and are clearly opposition obstruction, yet the suspension period is endlessly prolonged," he said.
He emphasized, "Only the president is denied any procedural reasons and forced to undergo speedy trials. At this point, it would not be inappropriate to call the Constitutional Court not the highest constitutional institution but the highest 'beating' institution." He added, "Currently, the president is in a tragic situation where no defense rights are allowed, and he must endure all disadvantages."
Lawyer Yoon said, "When persuasion and warnings failed to work amid the constitutional crisis caused by the opposition party's rampage, the president ultimately appealed directly to the people through the emergency decree, a presidential emergency power, asking the sovereign people to criticize and check the situation."
He added, "The president's declaration of emergency martial law can never constitute treason. The claim that the president, who is at the apex of state power, attempted to usurp power through the declaration of emergency martial law is completely unconvincing," he criticized.
He further stated, "Emergency martial law, as an emergency power, is a constitutional authority of the president. The determination of the conditions for declaring emergency martial law is a matter for the president, the highest power in representative democracy, and there has never been a case where the exercise of the president's national emergency powers was punished as treason, which is the clear conclusion of most constitutional scholars."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
