Yoon's Side Objects "Jo Seonghyeon Statement Not Presented"... Court "Evidence Admission Deferred"

Yoon's Defense Raises Objection at the Start of Witness Examination

The defense team of former President Yoon Seok-yeol, who has been indicted on charges of leading an insurrection, immediately raised an objection as soon as the witness examination of Cho Seong-hyun, commander of the 1st Security Battalion of the Army Capital Defense Command, began, stating that "the prosecution's statement records and documents prepared by Commander Cho should not be presented." In response, the court decided to withhold the acceptance of evidence.

Colonel Jo Seong-hyeon, Commander of the 1st Security Group of the Capital Defense Command, is testifying at the 8th hearing of President Yoon Seok-yeol's impeachment trial held at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul on February 13, 2025. Photo by the Constitutional Court

At the first trial of former President Yoon's insurrection case held on the 14th at the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 25 (Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon), the defense made this claim. Following the morning session, the afternoon trial will proceed with Yoon's opening statement and the witness examinations of Commander Cho and Kim Hyung-gi, commander of the 1st Special Forces Battalion of the Special Warfare Command.

The defense argued at the start of Commander Cho's witness examination that "Witness Cho Seong-hyun appears to be a co-conspirator suspect," adding, "In such cases, although the statements are prepared by the prosecutor, the statement records lack evidentiary power, and presenting them is not permitted under the Criminal Procedure Act."

They also pointed out issues regarding documents such as the progress records prepared by Commander Cho. The defense stated, "These were created after the fact, and presenting them during the trial without reviewing the circumstances of their preparation is problematic," adding, "It is only natural to undergo a proper authentication procedure."

In response, the court stated, "If the prosecution discloses the source of the evidence and the defense expresses their opinion, we will decide whether to admit the evidence."

Meanwhile, on the same day, the defense requested the dismissal of the indictment, claiming there was an illegal detention. They reiterated their argument at the time of the detention cancellation decision that the prosecution's indictment was carried out through unlawful procedures. They also argued that, for the exercise of procedural rights, a new pre-trial preparation date should be set to organize the issues before proceeding with the witness examination process.

Yoon's defense attorney Yoon Gap-geun said, "The charges are not specified, so it is unclear what the defendant should contest," adding, "In the current situation where the prosecution has not disclosed the source, it is difficult to prevent the presentation of illegally obtained evidence, which inevitably causes serious obstacles to the defendant's right to defense."