'Dismissal vs. Rejection': Five Key Issues [AK Radio]

Final Arguments in Impeachment Trial Conclude on the 25th
President Yoon's Final Statement, Kwon Seong-dong Says "It Should Include an Apology"

On the 25th, the final oral arguments for the impeachment trial of President Yoon Seok-yeol began at the Constitutional Court. It has been 73 days since the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion on December 14 last year. After questioning a total of 16 witnesses, including the President, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, other Cabinet members, and the top commanders of the martial law forces, the trial procedures will conclude with the final arguments on this day.

President Yoon is expected to make his final statement late in the evening (around 8 to 9 p.m.). Once the arguments conclude, the Constitutional Court justices will proceed with deliberation, judgment, drafting the decision, and the announcement process. Considering past impeachment trials of former Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye, which typically took about two weeks, the verdict is expected around March 10. The Constitutional Court will comprehensively assess whether President Yoon violated the Constitution, the gravity of such violations, and their social utility to decide whether to uphold or dismiss the impeachment motion.

The Constitutional Court will conclude the trial proceedings on the 25th with President Yoon Seok-yeol's final statement. Scene from the 10th trial held on February 21.

The key issues in this impeachment trial can be summarized into five major points. First, whether the conditions for declaring martial law were met. Article 77 of the Constitution states, "The President may declare martial law when it is necessary to respond to military needs or maintain public order during wartime, armed conflict, or a comparable national emergency." The issue is whether the opposition party's 'line impeachment' and the review of budget cuts can be considered a 'national emergency.'

Second, the legality of the Cabinet meeting. The Constitution requires the President to obtain Cabinet deliberation before declaring martial law. The question is whether the meeting held at that time qualifies as a legitimate Cabinet meeting. President Yoon's side argues that the meeting held before the martial law declaration was a substantive Cabinet meeting, and former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min testified that "no Cabinet member considered the martial law declaration unconstitutional or illegal." On the other hand, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo testified that "it was not a regular Cabinet meeting and had formal, substantive, and procedural defects." Moreover, a typical Cabinet meeting would have minutes and department signatures, but such procedures were absent.

Third, issues related to Proclamation No. 1 and the emergency reform legislative body. Proclamation No. 1 included a ban on political activities of the National Assembly, local councils, political parties, political associations, assemblies, and demonstrations, as well as plans to establish an emergency legislative body. The question is whether these measures exceeded the limits permitted by the Constitution. Fourth, whether there was an order to block the National Assembly and arrest politicians. This was the issue most questioned by the Constitutional Court justices, focusing on whether President Yoon ordered the blockade of the National Assembly and the arrest of politicians. Fifth, the legality of deploying the military to the Central Election Commission. Since the Election Commission is an independent constitutional agency, it is necessary to determine whether sending martial law troops there was justified.

On the afternoon of the 20th, at the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, President Yoon Seok-yeol, seated during the 10th impeachment trial hearing, is seen conversing with his attorney.
February 20, 2025. Photo by Joint Press Corps

Particularly, conflicting testimonies regarding the order to arrest politicians have drawn significant attention. Testimonies from former Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service Hong Jang-won, former Commander of the Army Special Warfare Command Kwak Jong-geun, and former Commissioner of the National Police Agency Cho Ji-ho became focal points. Former Commissioner Cho Ji-ho stated during the prosecution investigation that he "received an arrest order from President Yoon," and this statement was confirmed as true during the Constitutional Court trial. President Yoon claimed that they were "caught up in a rebellion frame or impeachment plot," but testimonies from lower-ranking commanders also support that arrest orders were given, weakening President Yoon's claims.

Regarding the deployment of troops to the Election Commission and the drafting of the proclamation, President Yoon's side partially acknowledged these points. President Yoon admitted sending martial law troops to the Election Commission and issuing military deployment orders but explained it was "to verify facts regarding allegations of election fraud." Proclamation No. 1 was drafted by former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, referencing past martial law documents, and President Yoon made some revisions.

※ For detailed information, please click the video.

Edited by: Ma Yena PD

President Yoon cited allegations of election fraud as the justification for declaring martial law, but this issue was not heavily addressed during the Constitutional Court trial. President Yoon claimed, "There were many absurd ballots that did not make sense logically, so I thought there would be a problem." However, even the Secretary-General of the Election Commission, who was a university classmate of President Yoon, refuted this by saying, "I regret that allegations of election fraud continue." The election fraud allegations seem to have lost much of their influence as an issue.

Regarding President Yoon's final arguments today, some voices suggest that he should clarify the circumstances of the martial law declaration and offer an apology. Kwon Seong-dong, floor leader of the People Power Party, said, "I hope the President's remarks include a sincere apology." However, this appears to be personal advice conveyed without prior consultation.

With sharply divided opinions on impeachment support and opposition, attention is focused on what President Yoon will say in his final statement. Depending on the Constitutional Court's decision, South Korean politics will enter a new phase.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.