Is Yoon's Fate in the Hands of the 'Conservative Trio'... April Verdict Possible

Jung Hyungsik, Cho Hanchang, and Kim Bokhyung Consistently Dismiss Impeachment Trials
Constitutional Court Avoids Ruling on Emergency Martial Law in Han Deok-su Case
"Clues to Yoon's Verdict Likely Concealed"... Deliberations May Be Prolonged

On the 24th, the Constitutional Court dismissed the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Deok-su without making a substantive judgment on one of the core grounds for prosecution, the “unconstitutionality and illegality of the emergency martial law.” Although the decision document spanned 40 pages of A4 paper, this issue was covered in only one page. There had been speculation that the Han Prime Minister case could serve as a gauge for President Yoon Seok-yeol’s impeachment trial, but the “outlook” is increasingly becoming unclear.

In the Han Prime Minister impeachment case, Justices Moon Hyung-bae, Lee Mi-sun, Kim Hyung-doo, and Jung Jung-mi, who issued dissenting opinions for dismissal, stated, “There is no evidence to acknowledge that Prime Minister Han took active actions such as proposing the convening of the Cabinet meeting to grant procedural legitimacy to the emergency martial law.” They added, “No evidence or objective data that could recognize facts related to the National Assembly’s prosecution were found.” While stating that Prime Minister Han did not assist President Yoon’s declaration of martial law, they skipped judgment on the legality of the emergency martial law. There was also no judgment on the procedural issues consistently raised by President Yoon’s side during the impeachment trial.

In the legal community, there is an analysis that the Constitutional Court was careful not to reveal any clues that could infer the conclusion of President Yoon’s impeachment trial. Along with this, there is speculation that the justices’ opinions regarding President Yoon’s impeachment trial have not yet converged and that deliberations may be extended.

In particular, the differences among the justices revealed during the dismissal of the ninth impeachment trial against public officials of the Yoon Seok-yeol administration have attracted attention. This has led to speculation that President Yoon’s impeachment trial is becoming prolonged against general expectations and that the conclusion is becoming difficult to predict.

Early interest in the justices’ “leanings” in President Yoon’s impeachment trial focused on the so-called progressive justices. These include Justices Moon Hyung-bae, Lee Mi-sun, and Jung Gye-seon, who are affiliated with progressive groups within the judiciary such as the Uri Law Research Association and the International Human Rights Law Research Association. The ruling party and supporters of President Yoon targeted them for criticism. However, as President Yoon’s impeachment trial has prolonged, attention has shifted to justices classified as conservative.

Yonhap News

In the Han Prime Minister case, Justices Jung Hyung-sik and Cho Han-chang, who issued opinions for dismissal, were appointed with involvement from the ruling party. Justice Jung, the presiding justice in President Yoon’s case, was appointed by President Yoon exercising his appointment authority, and Justice Cho Han-chang was recommended by the People Power Party. Justice Kim Bok-hyung, who issued a separate opinion for dismissal in the Han Prime Minister case, was nominated by Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae and stated, “The non-appointment of Prime Minister Han as a constitutional justice is neither unconstitutional nor illegal.”

Justices Jung Hyung-sik, Cho Han-chang, and Kim Bok-hyung have consistently issued dismissal opinions in major public official impeachment trials this year, including those of Lee Jin-sook, Chairperson of the Korea Communications Commission; Choi Jae-hae, Chairperson of the Board of Audit and Inspection; and Lee Chang-soo, Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office. In all impeachment cases, they have sided with the respondents rather than the National Assembly. There is speculation that the decision on whether President Yoon will be removed from office will also depend on their choices.

Of course, there are opinions cautioning against overinterpretation since the grounds for impeachment of other public officials like Prime Minister Han differ from those of President Yoon. A constitutional scholar who formerly served as a constitutional researcher said, “The Constitutional Court did not reach a conclusion on the unconstitutionality or illegality of the emergency martial law in the Han Prime Minister ruling because it was not necessary to do so,” adding, “The dismissal decision in Prime Minister Han’s impeachment case has limited influence on the impeachment decision regarding President Yoon.”

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court has not announced the date for the ruling on President Yoon’s impeachment, which marks the 102nd day since the impeachment resolution, as of the 25th. Instead, it announced that it will issue rulings on general cases such as constitutional complaints and constitutional review of laws on the 27th. There is even talk that the ruling may be postponed until April.