Yoon Fails to Appear for Insurrection Trial Three Weeks in a Row... Special Prosecutor Requests Warrant for Compulsory Attendance

Former President Yoon Suk-yeol once again failed to appear in court on July 24 for his trial on charges of insurrection. The special prosecutor requested the court to issue a warrant for Yoon's compulsory attendance.

Former President Yoon Sukyeol. Yonhap News

On July 24, the 25th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Ji Guyoun, proceeded with the 12th hearing on charges of leading an insurrection and abuse of power. Yoon's legal team submitted a statement to the court the previous day, claiming that he was unable to attend the trial due to health reasons, and did not appear. The court decided to proceed with the witness examination in the form of "evidence investigation outside of the scheduled hearing," as it had on July 10 and July 17.

The court stated, "Since the defendant has repeatedly failed to appear, we will proceed with the investigation process in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Rules," and added, "We have received the medical certificate from the defense, and we will check with the detention center to verify whether his health is truly poor and whether compulsory attendance is possible."

The special prosecutor said, "The defendant attended the previous nine hearings without issue, and during that time made no claims regarding his health. He also appeared at the detention review hearing, which lasted four hours and fifty minutes." The special prosecutor continued, "Ultimately, after failing to appear at the last two scheduled hearings, he has again failed to appear without just cause. Since the defendant has neglected his duty to appear and has now missed three consecutive hearings, we request the issuance of a warrant for compulsory attendance."

Yoon's legal team argued that, in addition to health reasons, they did not attend the trial due to concerns about the legitimacy of the special prosecutor's authority to maintain the indictment. They stated, "There has never been a case where a special prosecutor, based on a law containing unconstitutional elements, has taken over the right to maintain the prosecution from the regular prosecutors and continued the indictment in an already filed case. We will also request a constitutional review to determine whether such a system is even possible under our country's constitution."

The special prosecutor and Yoon's legal team also clashed over the issue of scheduling additional hearings. Park Eoksu, assistant special prosecutor, said, "Given the nature of the insurrection charge, which threatens the existence of the state, the public's desire for a swift trial is greater than in any other case. If it is not possible to schedule additional hearings during the court recess, then please schedule them immediately after the recess so that these unproductive disputes can be resolved as quickly as possible." On the other hand, Yoon's legal team responded, "It is more important to efficiently resolve issues regarding witness selection and consent first. Rather than simply increasing the number of hearings, we hope the court will consider how to proceed efficiently."