"Verdict Based on Atmosphere, Not Evidence or Law"
Appeal Announced
The legal team representing former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was sentenced to five years in prison in the first trial for charges including obstruction of arrest by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), strongly objected to the court's ruling, stating, "The rule of law has disappeared and the legal system has collapsed."
In a statement released on the 17th, Yoon's defense team said, "A trial must be concluded based on evidence, law, and legal requirements, not on political or social atmosphere," adding, "The independence and credibility of the judiciary can only be maintained when such principles are upheld." The team further asserted, "This ruling appears to have changed its standards by taking into account the social repercussions," and claimed, "Political logic was at play."
The defense team reiterated issues previously raised in court, criticizing the judiciary for reducing or omitting legal reasoning in the process of finding Yoon guilty. First, they argued that since the CIO Act defines the agency's investigative targets as 'job-related crimes and corruption crimes by high-ranking officials,' expanding the investigation to charges of insurrection through abuse of authority constitutes an unlawful exercise of power. They claimed that the CIO does not have investigative authority over insurrection charges.
They also emphasized that there was no legal basis for excluding the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and pointed out that illegal procedures occurred, such as passing through locations not specified in the arrest warrant during its execution. The defense further highlighted that a cabinet member's right to deliberate cannot be regarded as a protected legal interest under the criminal code's charge of abuse of authority. Additionally, they argued that it was unjust for the court to deliver a verdict on the obstruction of arrest case before the main insurrection trial had concluded.
The defense team stated, "It is difficult to reconcile this with the impartiality that is the very reason for the judiciary's existence," and added, "Despite the need for strict procedural and substantive requirements, the court either abbreviated or avoided the grounds for its decision." They continued, "We deeply regret whether this ruling meets the standards that have supported the authority and credibility of the judiciary."
Previously, the 35th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Baek Daehyun) sentenced former President Yoon to five years in prison on January 16 on charges including obstruction of official duties and abuse of authority. Cho Eunseok, head of the special prosecutor's team for the insurrection case, had requested a ten-year prison sentence.
Immediately after the sentencing, Yoon's side expressed its intention to appeal, and the special prosecutor's team also indicated it would consider appealing, stating, "We will review the sentencing and some of the not-guilty verdicts."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
