Impeachment of Yoon, Key Issues Center on Justices' Questions... What Questions Were Asked?

[Records of Yoon’s Impeachment Trial] ④
No Special Schedule for the Court Until the 17th...
Focus Expected on Deliberating Yoon’s Impeachment
High Possibility of Verdict on the 14th...
Focus on Reconstructing Five Key Issues

The Constitutional Court has officially begun deliberations for the impeachment trial verdict of President Yoon Seok-yeol. After the closing of arguments on the 25th of last month, the justices reviewed the records individually during the recent holiday period, which included the March 1st Independence Movement Day, and organized the key issues. They plan to resume deliberations on the 4th to exchange opinions. The Constitutional Court has not scheduled any special events until the 17th. Accordingly, it is expected that the justices will hold focused deliberations on President Yoon's impeachment to gather their opinions. Legal circles, based on past impeachment trials of former Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye, predict that the final verdict will likely be announced in mid-March, with March 14th being a highly probable date. The announcement of the verdict date is typically made 2 to 3 days prior to the ruling.

So, what key issues will the justices focus on during their deliberations to reach a conclusion? Some answers can be gleaned from the questions the justices posed during the examination of 16 witnesses over the previous 11 hearings. To summarize, the justices concentrated on reconstructing five core issues: the constitutionality and legality of the emergency martial law declaration, Martial Law Proclamation No. 1, obstruction of parliamentary activities, arrests of politicians, and deployment of forces from the Central Election Commission. Justice Kim Hyung-doo asked the most questions to 13 witnesses, while Chief Justice Jeong Hyeong-sik and Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyeong-bae asked questions to 8 and 3 witnesses respectively.

① "If the purpose was maintaining order, why break the glass and enter?"

The justices focused on questioning the purpose behind President Yoon’s deployment of military and police forces to the National Assembly after declaring emergency martial law. If the military used physical force to block the National Assembly and obstruct its proceedings, it could be unconstitutional, as Article 77 of the Constitution does not allow restrictions on legislative activities. During the 4th hearing, Justice Jeong Hyeong-sik asked former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, "If the purpose was maintaining order, why did the military break the glass of the National Assembly main building and enter? Did the entry of the military cause the conflict?" Justice Kim Hyung-doo, during the examination of former Minister Kim, stated, "At that time, even the Speaker of the National Assembly climbed over the wall. There are many indications that the goal was to block the National Assembly."

② Who was the target of the order to "pull them out"?

The justices also inquired whether there was an order to "pull out the members of the National Assembly." During the 6th hearing, Justice Jeong questioned former Commander Kwak Jong-geun, saying, "The witness’s statements seem to vary slightly," and added, "Sometimes it was said ‘people,’ sometimes ‘members of the Assembly,’ and these are mixed." As a ‘grammatical dispute’ arose over whether President Yoon’s order targeted members, personnel, or agents, the justices sought to clarify the facts. Additionally, during the 8th hearing, Justice Jeong asked Colonel Jo Seong-hyeon of the Capital Defense Command’s 1st Security Unit, "Was former Commander Lee Jin-woo’s exact wording ‘go inside the main building and pull out the members of the National Assembly’?" Colonel Jo replied, "Yes. I received orders to ‘go inside and pull out the members.’"

③ Legitimacy of the Cabinet meeting

Since the president must go through a Cabinet meeting to declare martial law, the justices also verified whether this procedure was properly followed. During the 7th hearing, Justice Kim asked former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min, "It seems the other attendees did not realize they were in a Cabinet meeting, but did you think it was a Cabinet meeting?" He also confirmed, "There was no declaration of opening, explanation of agenda, or closing declaration?is that correct?" Justice Kim also asked Prime Minister Han Duck-soo for his personal opinion on the Cabinet meeting, eliciting the response, "What I can clearly say is that it was not a typical Cabinet meeting and that there were formal and substantive defects." Justice Jeong asked former Minister Kim Yong-hyun whether the ministers or witnesses signed the emergency martial law proclamation. This appears to confirm compliance with Article 82 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the president’s official acts must be documented and signed by the prime minister and relevant ministers.

④ The substance of the so-called ‘arrest list’

The content related to a memo by former 1st Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service Hong Jang-won was also thoroughly examined. Former Deputy Director Hong testified that "President Yoon ordered ‘arrest them all,’ and former Counterintelligence Commander Yeo In-hyeong read out the arrest list." During the 5th hearing, Justice Jeong persistently questioned former Deputy Director Hong about the phrase ‘arrest request’ written on the arrest team’s memo. The question implied that if former Commander Yeo requested arrest support, it should have been written as ‘arrest support’ rather than ‘arrest request.’ During the 10th hearing, Justice Kim raised doubts, saying, "It’s somewhat strange that President Yoon bypassed the Director of the National Intelligence Service and called former Deputy Director Hong directly. The content of the call was also very straightforward."

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