Constitutional Court: "Yoon Impeachment Trial Additional Dates Undecided... Prosecution Records Usable as Evidence"

Yoon's Side Criticizes Court's "Regressive Decision That Runs Counter to the Trend of Protecting Human Rights"

The Constitutional Court stated that no decision has yet been made regarding the designation of an additional hearing date for President Yoon Seok-yeol's impeachment trial. If the Court does not set an additional hearing date, the procedures, including the examination of 15 witnesses over eight sessions, will conclude, leaving only President Yoon's final statement and the final verdict process.

President Yoon Suk-yeol attended the 6th impeachment trial hearing held at the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the morning of the 6th. 2025.02.06 Photo by Joint Press Corps

On the same day at 11 a.m., Cheon Jae-hyun, the Constitutional Court's spokesperson, said at a regular briefing held at the Court, in response to the question, "Is there a scheduled additional hearing date for President Yoon's impeachment trial?" that "No information has been received yet."

The Court has not announced whether it will adopt additional witnesses beyond the eight already presented. Among the witnesses requested by both sides, the acceptance or rejection of two individuals?Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and Lieutenant General Lee Kyung-min, Acting Commander of the Republic of Korea Army Counterintelligence Command?has not yet been decided. Spokesperson Cheon said that the decision on these individuals has not been made yet. Depending on whether additional witnesses are accepted, additional hearing dates may be scheduled, followed sequentially by the final arguments and the opportunity for the final statement.

Additionally, the Court stated that, unlike criminal trials, it can admit prosecution interrogation records denied by the parties as evidence in President Yoon's impeachment trial. In response to a reporter's question asking, "Since the 2020 amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, in criminal courts, if the defendant denies statements made by accomplices to investigative agencies, such statements cannot be used as evidence. Despite the amendment, does the Court intend to maintain the precedent from 2017 during former President Park Geun-hye's impeachment trial?" Spokesperson Cheon replied, "Yes."

Previously, the 2020 amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act changed the rule so that suspect interrogation records prepared by prosecutors can only be used as evidence in criminal trials if the defendant acknowledges their content. Regarding this, Spokesperson Cheon explained, "Constitutional trials differ in nature from criminal trials. Article 40, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act specifies that the Criminal Procedure Act is applied only to the extent that it does not contradict the nature of constitutional trials."

In response, President Yoon's side strongly opposed the Court's stance, stating, "Relaxing the strengthened rules of evidence by reverting to previous precedents is a regressive decision that goes against the trend of protecting human rights." In a statement distributed that day, President Yoon's legal team said, "Those precedents were set by the Court itself and have been criticized by many constitutional scholars both then and now," adding, "Are you saying you will follow the erroneous precedent of former President Park Geun-hye's impeachment trial, which judged not by strict rules of evidence but merely by the superiority of proof, and even admitted illegally obtained evidence as evidence for the sake of discovering the truth?"

They continued, "The Court's attitude of admitting investigation records that contradict witness testimony in court and placing interrogation records above testimony completely contradicts the principle of an adversarial trial system, which aims to discover substantive testimony and realize a fair trial."