Yoon Sentenced to 7 Years in Appeal for "Obstruction of Arrest and Cabinet Meeting Irregularities"... 2 Years Longer Than Initial Trial

Cabinet Meeting Procedure Flaws and False Press Guidance Also Overturned to Guilty
All Claims on Investigative Authority and Presidential Immunity Dismissed

In the appeals trial of former President Yoon Seok-yeol, who was indicted on charges including obstruction of execution of an arrest warrant by the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Department, the sentence was increased by two years compared to the first trial, resulting in a seven-year prison term.

Former President Yoon Seok-yeol, who was indicted on charges including obstruction of arrest by the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Department, attended the appeal trial verdict hearing at the Seoul High Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 29th and is touching his face. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

The Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul High Court (Chief Judge Yoon Sung-sik) overturned the original verdict and sentenced former President Yoon to seven years in prison at the appeal trial verdict hearing on the afternoon of the 29th, on charges including obstruction of official duties and abuse of authority. This marks the first appellate judgment related to the December 3 Martial Law case involving former President Yoon.

The court stated, "The defendant, as the incumbent president at the time of each crime, was under a grave responsibility to uphold the Constitution and promote the freedom and rights of the people. Nonetheless, by committing these crimes after declaring martial law, he aggravated social unrest and failed to fulfill his presidential duties."

The court further noted, "These crimes were committed with the intention of evading legal responsibility, which demonstrates severe culpability. The defendant continued to repeat the same arguments and attempted to evade responsibility throughout the investigation and appeals process. These circumstances following the crimes also count against him in sentencing."

However, the court took into consideration some favorable factors: the absence of a prior criminal record; the fact that it is difficult to conclude he actively led the fabrication of false official documents and the destruction of presidential records; and that attempts to restrict access to secure phone call records were not actually carried out.

The court reversed some of the acquittals from the first trial and found the defendant guilty on additional charges. While the first trial recognized abuse of authority only in the case of infringement of the deliberation rights of seven cabinet members who did not receive the meeting notice, the appellate court also recognized infringement of deliberation rights for the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy. The court explained, "Considering the locations and travel times of the Ministers of Land and Industry at the time, the meeting notice was sent when it was practically impossible for them to attend the cabinet meeting. This constitutes a procedural flaw and is deemed an abuse of authority infringing on deliberation rights."

The court also found the defendant guilty of abuse of authority in relation to the PG (Press Guidance—government position for media response), which had been acquitted at the first trial. The court stated, "The portion of the PG distributed by the secretary for overseas public relations that claimed 'access for members of the National Assembly was not blocked' contradicts objective facts. Furthermore, the content that emphasized only the positive aspects or suggested that the measures were constitutional to protect the constitutional order led to a misleading or incorrect perception through definitive expressions. Since the defendant ordered the distribution of a PG that he knew to be false and compelled conduct without duty, this constitutes abuse of authority."

All of the defendant's arguments regarding the investigative authority of the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Department were dismissed. On the issue of presidential immunity from prosecution under Article 84 of the Constitution, the court ruled, "It only prohibits the initiation of prosecution, not the investigation itself." Regarding the jurisdiction of the Seoul Western District Court to issue warrants, the court found, "Under Article 47 of the Act on the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Department and the Criminal Procedure Act, jurisdiction is recognized and the process is not illegal."

Additionally, the court found that at the time of the execution of the first arrest warrant, the security service staff did not merely take passive defensive measures but, by exerting collective force, assaulted the official in charge of the warrant. Thus, it ruled that joint principals of the crime of obstruction of official duties with special circumstances were established. Regarding the second arrest warrant, the court found that former President Yoon tacitly permitted and approved the security service deputy chief and others to conduct scrum drills and forceful patrols, thereby establishing joint principal responsibility for abuse of authority.

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