Former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was sentenced to seven years in prison for obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant related to the declaration of martial law on December 3, has decided not to file a constitutional appeal. Yoon expressed that such an appeal does not align with the current judicial system or his constitutional views.
On July 20, Yoon's legal team issued a statement saying, "The recent Supreme Court ruling on Yoon Suk Yeol's case involved significant constitutional issues, including the scope of the Corruption Investigation Office's investigative powers, the president's immunity from prosecution, the limits of compulsory investigations during a president's term, the legality of searches in military secret locations, and the scope of cabinet members' deliberative rights and the establishment of abuse of power charges. Despite this, the Supreme Court made a ruling that contradicts existing precedents without referring the matter to a full bench."
They further stated, "The Supreme Court abandoned its responsibility to provide legal interpretations on key legal issues, dismissing most of the case based on factual determinations and subjective judgment. The legal and constitutional questions raised by this ruling are far from trivial, as the highest court has failed to fulfill its duty to ensure the consistency and legal stability of precedents."
The legal team noted that they considered various constitutional procedures, including a constitutional appeal, based on these concerns. They mentioned that there were significant internal discussions about the need to seek a constitutional judgment, especially considering the ruling's impact on the public's right to a fair trial and the principle of the rule of law.
However, Yoon acknowledged that while he finds many aspects of the Supreme Court ruling difficult to accept, he clearly stated that pursuing a so-called "constitutional appeal" against a final court ruling is incompatible with the judicial system established by the current South Korean Constitution and does not align with his consistent constitutional views.
The legal team also expressed agreement with Yoon's constitutional judgment, emphasizing that the constitutional order must respect not only its substantive values but also the distribution of powers and procedural limits that implement those values. They concluded that this decision was based on the principle that respecting the structure of judicial authority and the distribution of powers defined by the current Constitution is essential to uphold the rule of law, leading them to ultimately decide against filing a constitutional appeal.
Yoon was arrested and indicted in July of last year on charges of obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant and abuse of power by mobilizing presidential security personnel to interfere with the Corruption Investigation Office's execution of the warrant following the declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024.
On July 7, the Supreme Court's third division, led by Justice Lee Suk-yeon, upheld the original seven-year prison sentence for Yoon. This marked the first Supreme Court ruling related to Yoon after 583 days since the declaration of martial law.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, the legal team expressed deep regret that the highest court concluded such a significant case without sufficient deliberation from the perspective of the rule of law and warrant principles. They also stated their intention to challenge the constitutionality of the ruling through constitutional procedures, including a constitutional appeal, to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.