[Trial Recap] 9th Hearing in Sedition Trial of Yoon Suk-yeol (July 3, 2025) : Testimonies Reveal Internal Doubts and Legal Disputes



 🗓️ Hearing Overview

Date: July 3, 2025
Venue: Seoul Central District Court, Criminal Division 25 (Presiding Judge Ji Guyoun)
Defendant: Former President Yoon Suk-yeol
Witnesses:

  • Col. Kwon Young-hwan (former Director of Martial Law Division, ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff)

  • Col. Ko Dong-hee (former Chief of Planning, Defense Intelligence Command)

🔍 Key Issues and Testimonies

1. Legality of Special Prosecutor Case Transfer

Yoon's Legal Team

  • Argued the transfer of the case was legally void: the Special Prosecutor requested a "handover" (인계) but received a "referral" (이첩), which they claim are distinct legal actions.

  • Asserted that under the Special Prosecutor Act, only the Prosecutor General could authorize such transfer—not the Special Investigation Headquarters.

Special Prosecutor's Response

  • Maintained that the terms "handover" and "referral" are functionally equivalent in context.

  • Denied any procedural error and labeled the challenge a misinterpretation of basic legal standards.

Court Action

  • Ordered both parties to submit additional written opinions on the procedural dispute.

2. Testimony of Col. Kwon Young-hwan (JCS Martial Law Division)

  • Testified that the initial draft of the martial law proclamation was “too simplistic and suspicious.”

  • Pointed out the lack of standard constitutional safeguards and the inclusion of harsh measures targeting the medical sector.

  • Cited one clause ordering striking medical professionals to return within 48 hours or face punishment under martial law—calling it “alarming and abnormal.”

3. Testimony of Col. Ko Dong-hee (Defense Intelligence Command)

  • Confirmed he led an operation to occupy the National Election Commission’s (NEC) server room under orders from his commander, Maj. Gen. Moon Sang-ho, immediately following the martial law declaration.

  • Admitted he was told, “Watch TV at 10 p.m.—you’ll understand why this is legal,” when questioning the mission’s legality.

  • Described how the team disconnected NEC landlines and later deleted the operation’s group chat, feeling they were involved in “something shameful.”

  • Stated: “If someone asks me one day what I did that night, I wouldn’t be proud to answer.”

  • Currently on trial in a military court for charges related to sedition and abuse of authority.

⚖️ Additional Notes

  • Yoon remained silent during the hearing but smiled at supporters outside the courtroom.

  • The Special Prosecutor’s office announced its intention to summon 72 more witnesses, bringing the total to 110.

🔁 Disputed Legal Ground: Special Prosecutor's Jurisdiction

Yoon’s Claim:

  • The Special Prosecutor requested a handover from the wrong authority (not the Prosecutor General), making the case referral invalid.

  • Claims the investigation and indictment powers are unconstitutional.

Prosecutor’s Rebuttal:

  • Handover and referral are legally and functionally the same.

  • The procedure followed both statutory and practical norms.

  • Dismissed Yoon’s argument as “semantic nitpicking.”

🏷️ Hashtags

#YoonTrial #SeditionCase #MartialLaw #ElectionCommissionRaid #KwonTestimony #KoTestimony #SpecialProsecutorChallenge #KoreanPolitics #내란혐의 #계엄령 #윤석열재판

📌 Key Timeline Recap

Date Event
2024.12.03 Martial law declared (origin of sedition case)
2024.12.14 National Assembly passes impeachment motion
2024.12.18/25/29 Yoon refuses Corruption Office summons (3 times)
2024.12.31 Arrest warrant issued
2025.01.03 First arrest attempt fails (residence standoff)
2025.01.15 Yoon arrested
2025.01.19 Detention approved at 3 a.m.
2025.01.26 Indicted by Special Investigation HQ
2025.03.07 Detention ruled unlawful, Yoon released
2025.04.04 Constitutional Court upholds impeachment
2025.04.11 Yoon formally vacates presidential residence

🧾 Hearings Summary

1st Hearing (2025.04.14)

  • Closed-door session for security reasons.

  • Yoon gave a 93-minute lecture-like speech targeting prosecutors and the bench.

2nd Hearing (2025.04.21)

  • Witnesses: Col. Cho Sung-hyun, Lt. Col. Kim Hyung-ki.

  • Testified they refused unlawful orders to storm parliament.

3rd Hearing (2025.05.12)

  • Witnesses: Capt. Oh Sang-bae, Brig. Gen. Park Jung-hwan.

  • Testified Yoon gave orders to “shoot through doors” and “declare martial law multiple times.”

4th Hearing (2025.05.19)

  • Brig. Gen. Park stated he heard Maj. Gen. Kwak shouting “Break down the doors” and “Drag them out.”

  • Presented Kwak's handwritten notes from the night of the incident.

5th Hearing (2025.05.26)

  • Witness: Brig. Gen. Lee Sang-hyun.

  • Said Kwak ordered raids on the National Assembly and DP headquarters on Yoon’s instruction.

  • Quoted Kwak relaying Yoon's words: “Use an axe to break in and drag them out.”

6th Hearing (2025.06.09)

  • Lee reaffirmed the order came directly from President Yoon.

  • Related audio was played in court.

  • Yoon appeared wearing a pink-patterned tie, remained silent throughout.

7th Hearing (2025.06.19)

  • Brig. Gen. Kim Chul-jin testified he heard Yoon say, “You should’ve sent 1,000 troops.”

  • Prosecutors claimed it proved intent to escalate martial enforcement.

8th Hearing (2025.06.23)

  • Prosecutors called for expedited trial due to detention timing.

  • Witnesses: Brig. Gen. Lee Jae-sik and Col. Kwon Young-hwan.

  • Both emphasized that “preventive martial law is impossible” and political rights can't be suspended.


댓글

댓글 쓰기

이 블로그의 인기 게시물

Reevaluating the 10.26 Incident: The Retrial of Kim Jae-gyu and Its Impact on South Korean History

이미지
One of the Most Controversial Events in Modern South Korean History: The ‘10.26 Incident’ and the Recent Court Decision A South Korean court has decided to reopen the retrial of the late Kim Jae-gyu , the former director of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA), bringing the 10.26 Incident back into legal and historical evaluation after 45 years. This retrial is not merely a reconsideration of a past event but a significant opportunity to reassess the fairness of the original trial and to determine whether Kim’s actions were truly an act of insurrectional murder or a resistance effort to restore democracy . 🔍 What is the 10.26 Incident ? The 10.26 Incident refers to the assassination of President Park Chung-hee and Presidential Security Chief Cha Ji-chul by KCIA Director Kim Jae-gyu on October 26, 1979 . This incident marked the end of the Yushin regime and brought about a significant shift in South Korea’s political landscape. Following the assassination, Kim Jae...
자세한 내용 보기

South Korea’s Civil Code Revision: Key Changes and Implications

이미지
South Korea’s Civil Code Revision: Key Changes and Implications The South Korean government has introduced a major revision to the Civil Code, marking a significant legal modernization.  This reform aims to enhance clarity, align with global standards, and improve legal accessibility for both citizens and foreign residents. By addressing legal ambiguities and incorporating judicial precedents into statutory law, this revision is expected to enhance predictability in legal disputes. Key Reforms in the Civil Code Revision One of the most notable changes is the improvement of the breach of obligation system.  Previously, the Civil Code only had provisions on non-performance and delay but lacked explicit rules on partial performance.  The revised law clarifies this by defining breach as “when performance has not been completed” rather than “when performance becomes impossible.” Additionally, the scope of remedies such as restitution and periodic compensation has been expanded...
자세한 내용 보기

Korean Constitutional Court to Rule on President Yoon's Impeachment April 4th

이미지
  In a historic and politically charged moment, the Constitutional Court of South Korea is set to deliver its final verdict on the impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol. The court announced that the decision will be made public on Friday, April 4, 2025, at 11:00 AM , at the Grand Courtroom in Jongno-gu, Seoul. The announcement follows 111 days after the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion and 38 days after the final hearings concluded on March 25. The outcome of this ruling holds significant implications not just for the current administration but for the broader framework of constitutional law and democratic governance in South Korea. This pivotal moment comes amidst growing scrutiny from both political circles and the public, as the nation stands at the crossroads of legal accountability and executive authority. A Decision with Immediate Impact The court's verdict will determine whether President Yoon will continue to lead the country or be permanently removed f...
자세한 내용 보기