Yoon’s ‘Cabinet Martial Law Deliberation Violation Case’ First Trial Verdict Set for January 16 Next Year

Court: "Verdict Must Be Delivered Within Six Months of Indictment Under Special Prosecutor Act"
Yoon’s Side: "Sentencing Should Follow Conclusion of Insurrection Leader Case"

Former President Yoon Sukyeol is attending the trial on charges of obstruction of special official duties at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul on the 26th.

The verdict in the first trial concerning former President Yoon Sukyeol’s charges of obstructing arrest and violating the martial law deliberation and decision rights of Cabinet members will be delivered on January 16 next year. This will be the first sentencing among the four cases prosecuted in connection with the December 3 Martial Law.

The 35th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Baek Daehyun) stated during the continued trial on December 16 for charges including obstruction of special official duties against former President Yoon, "According to the Special Act on the Investigation of Insurrection, the first trial verdict must be delivered within six months from the date of indictment," adding, "It appears the sentencing will need to take place on January 16 next year."

As Special Prosecutor Cho Eunsuk’s team filed an additional indictment against former President Yoon on July 19, the first trial court must deliver a verdict by January 19 next year. The court announced it plans to conclude arguments on either the 19th or 26th of this month.

The special prosecutor’s team stated, "We appreciate the court setting the sentencing date in line with the intent of the Special Prosecutor Act," adding, "We will do our utmost to ensure the trial concludes according to the court’s schedule."

Former President Yoon’s legal team argued that the verdict in this case should be rendered only after the conclusion of the insurrection leader charges currently being heard by the 25th Criminal Division (Presiding Judge Ji Guyoun). The first trial verdict for the insurrection leader charges against former President Yoon is expected around February next year.

Yoon’s side requested that the verdict be postponed until after the insurrection leader case is concluded, but the court did not accept this request.

Attorney Song Jin-ho stated, "The special prosecutor claims that the martial law was illegal and that the defendant ordered this illegality and forced actions without duty. However, whether the martial law was illegal is being contested in the insurrection case," adding, "I would like to suggest that the verdict should wait for that case to be resolved."

However, the court explained, "This case is about reviewing the legality of the defendant’s actions in instructing the dissemination of related information to foreign media after the declaration of martial law," and added, "Whether the declaration of martial law itself constitutes insurrection or is illegal is not the issue in this case."

The court also stated, "The trial schedule is based on principle, but if it is determined during review that additional hearings on other issues are necessary, there is a possibility the schedule could be changed."

Former President Yoon personally continued to argue that the presidential declaration of martial law is not subject to judicial review.

He stated, "It is generally accepted that whether the substantive and procedural requirements for the presidential declaration of martial law have been met is not subject to judicial review," adding, "If it is determined in the insurrection case that it does not constitute insurrection, the President’s judgment should be respected, and therefore, the claim of violating the Cabinet’s deliberation rights collapses."

The special prosecutor’s team indicted former President Yoon on charges of violating the martial law deliberation and decision rights of nine Cabinet members who were unable to attend the Cabinet meeting, alleging that he convened only a portion of the Cabinet to give the appearance of a proper meeting before declaring martial law. He is also accused of creating a false martial law proclamation after the martial law was lifted and destroying this document, which is both a presidential record and an official government document.