Hello, I am Jun Ji-hye, a reporter at The Korea Times. I primarily cover financial authorities and write articles on a wide range of topics related to finance and capital markets. If you have any information to share, feel free to email me at jjh@koreatimes.co.kr, and I will review it carefully. I am committed to always doing my best to communicate with readers through high-quality articles.
How will impeachment affect Yoon's upcoming criminal trial?
Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae, third from left, delivers the ruling to uphold the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, Friday. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul
By Jun Ji-hye
Main disputes center on Yoon’s martial law intent, admissibility of evidence in proving rebellion
The Constitutional Court’s unanimous decision on Friday to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol is drawing attention to how the ruling might influence upcoming criminal proceedings for his insurrection charges.
As a constitutional trial is fundamentally different from a criminal trial, Friday’s ruling is unlikely to have a direct legal impact. Still, it may serve as a reference point in terms of factual finding or legal interpretations.
A constitutional trial focuses on legal and constitutional issues, including the validity of laws and impeachment cases. In contrast, a criminal trial determines whether a defendant is guilty and, if so, imposes punishment. Therefore, it requires a far more rigorous standard of proof.
For Yoon, both types of trials intersect on a critical question: whether his abrupt Dec. 3 martial law declaration amounts to rebellion.
The Constitutional Court found that Yoon’s brief imposition of martial law could be subject to judicial scrutiny, rejecting his legal team’s long-standing claim that such a move falls under the president’s discretionary powers and should therefore not be subject to judicial oversight.
As Yoon’s attorneys are expected to raise similar arguments during his upcoming criminal trial, they are likely to butt heads with state prosecutors over whether the martial law declaration can be punished under criminal law.
Rep. Jung Chung-rae of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea, who served as the impeachment prosecutor representing the National Assembly, shakes hands with a fellow lawmaker at the Constitutional Court, Friday, after the court delivered its ruling to uphold the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul
When removing Yoon from office, the court ruled that his martial law declaration lacked legitimacy. It noted that his attempts to shut down the National Assembly, raid the National Election Commission and detain key political figures, among others, were both unconstitutional and unlawful.
For Yoon to be convicted of rebellion in a criminal trial, prosecutors must prove that his actions were not merely unlawful but amounted to an insurrection aimed at overthrowing the constitutional order.
According to the country’s Criminal Act, insurrection involves attempting to nullify the functions of the Constitution or laws by bypassing due process, or using force to dismantle or paralyze government institutions established by the Constitution.
Prosecutors claim that all of Yoon’s actions under the martial law declaration were aimed at dismantling the nation’s liberal democratic foundations, thereby qualifying as insurrection.
In contrast, Yoon’s legal team argues that the declaration lacked any rebellious intent, characterizing it as “peaceful martial law” and denying the occurrence of any violent insurgence.
As such, a central issue in the criminal proceedings will be whether prosecutors can substantiate both Yoon’s alleged intent to disrupt the constitutional order and the existence of an actual rebellion.
The admissibility of testimony from key witnesses, as well as other evidence, is also expected to play a crucial role in the upcoming criminal trial.
During the Constitutional Court proceedings, Lt. Gen. Kwak Jong-geun, former chief of the Army Special Warfare Command, and Hong Jang-won, former first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service, sparked controversy over inconsistencies in their statements.
As their testimonies form the basis of allegations that Yoon attempted to block lawmakers from entering the Assembly and ordered the warrantless arrest of key political figures, how they testify in criminal court will have a significant impact on the trial’s outcome.
Additionally, whether the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and the prosecution had the legal authority to investigate charges of insurrection — an issue that was not addressed in the Constitutional Court’s impeachment ruling — will also be a major point of contention in the criminal trial.
Yoon’s defense team argues that neither the CIO nor the prosecution has the legal authority to investigate insurrection charges, thereby rendering any evidence they collected inadmissible in court.
Their claim is based on the principle that evidence obtained through unlawful procedures, along with any derivative evidence, is not inadmissible in court. Korean case law generally supports this position.
Arguing that the prosecution had no legal grounds to file the charges in the first place, Yoon’s attorneys are even calling for the dismissal of the indictment itself. The way a local court responds to this claim could significantly shape the course of the trial.