Yoon Suk Yeol, the former president, maintained his innocence during the appeal hearing regarding charges of perjury related to the insurrection case involving former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. The special prosecutor's team argued that the court should find him guilty due to factual misunderstandings and legal misinterpretations.
The Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 1, presided over by Judge Yoon Seong-sik, held the first hearing of Yoon's appeal on July 1. The session involved listening to the special prosecutor's reasons for appeal and the defense's counterarguments.
The special prosecutor's office previously charged Yoon with perjury for allegedly making false statements while testifying as a witness in the case against Han, who is accused of aiding insurrection. Yoon reportedly claimed that he convened a Cabinet meeting to discuss Han's proposal, despite having called the meeting before receiving any such proposal.
The special prosecutor contended that the first trial court's judgment was flawed due to factual errors and legal misunderstandings.
In response, Yoon's defense pointed out that former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun provided detailed testimony regarding the emergency martial law declaration but did not mention the Cabinet meeting's context. They argued that if there had been plans to summon additional Cabinet members, it could have been done according to a prepared list, making it unnecessary to call out names on the spot after the meeting.
The defense further asserted that the original court misinterpreted the facts, claiming that Yoon's testimony indicated there was a plan to convene a Cabinet meeting before Han's proposal was made.
On the other hand, Yoon's legal team argued that the appeal should be dismissed by examining the events surrounding the emergency martial law declaration on December 3. Attorney Kim Gye-ri criticized the special prosecutor's reliance on inconsistent statements from Han, asserting that Han had claimed to oppose the martial law and had attempted to prevent it as Prime Minister, suggesting that his testimony was fabricated to evade investigation.
After the defense concluded its arguments, Yoon spoke up, stating, "While Han and several Cabinet members opposed the martial law, it doesn't make sense to say, 'Let's hold a Cabinet meeting to discuss it further.'"
The court decided to continue the hearing on July 28, during which Han will be cross-examined. Both the special prosecutor's office and the defense are expected to engage in a one-hour debate regarding Han's testimony.
In the first trial, the court noted that it seemed likely Yoon had plans to summon Cabinet members regardless of Han's proposal, stating that it was difficult to view Yoon's courtroom testimony as inconsistent and that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against him, leading to a not guilty verdict.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.