[Trial Recap] 13th Hearing in Sedition Trial of Yoon Suk-yeol (Aug 11, 2025)

🗓️ Hearing Overview

Date: August 11, 2025
Court: Seoul Central District Court, Criminal Division 25 (Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon)
Defendant: Former President Yoon Suk-yeol (absent; 4th straight no-show)
Witnesses: Col. Kim Young-kwon (Defense Counterintelligence, 550th Unit), Brig. Gen. Koo Sam-hoe (former Commander, 2nd Armored Brigade)

1. Key Issues and Proceedings

Bench: Proceed under the Criminal Procedure Act without the defendant present; any disadvantage arising from in-absentia proceedings is borne by the defendant.
Legal basis:
- Criminal Procedure Act, Art. 277-2 (Defendant’s Refusal to Appear & Trial):
  (1) If a detained defendant refuses to appear without just cause and escort by correctional officers is impossible or markedly impracticable, the court may proceed without the defendant present.
  (2) When proceeding under (1), the court must hear the views of the prosecutor and defense counsel who are in attendance.
- Criminal Procedure Rules, Art. 126-5 (Inquiry into Refusal to Appear):
  (1) Before proceeding in absentia under Art. 277-2, the court shall inquire into whether the grounds exist.
  (2) The court may summon correctional officials or other related persons, hear their statements, or require written reports.
  (3) A member of the panel may be directed to conduct the inquiry.

Seoul Detention Center’s reply: Using force to escort the defendant risks incidents and human-rights issues, creating a wider social impact → deemed “markedly impracticable.”
Bench: No objective record confirming any mobility impairment.
Positions: Special Counsel urged issuance of an arrest/compulsory-appearance writ; defense argued for continuing in absentia.

Testimony that, immediately after a call with “Code One” (a term commonly used to refer to the President), then-Special Warfare Commander Gwak referenced “tasers,” “blank rounds,” and even “cutting power to the National Assembly.”
Explained why “Code One” = President (protective-detail usage + situational reporting norms).
Despite the National Assembly’s vote to lift martial law (early hours of Dec 4), Kim observed a push to deploy troops to the National Election Commission (NEC). His 02:13 memo noted the abnormality: “Are we deploying to NEC? … This is getting crazy. All subject to investigation.”

Background & relation: Long-standing personal ties with Noh Sang-won (former Defense Intelligence Agency chief). Identified as a participant in the pre-martial-law “hamburger shop meeting,” which explains his subpoena in this hearing.
Separate criminal matter (context, not the core of this trial): In a merged/related case involving Noh, press reports describe a ₩5 million cash payment tied to a personnel-favor request connected with Koo. (This is background to Noh’s case and not a contested element in the sedition hearing itself.)

The defendant has missed four consecutive hearings (since being re-detained on July 10: 7/10, 7/17, 7/24, 8/11).
The court reiterated that in-absentia is lawful where a detained defendant refuses to appear without just cause and compulsory production is impossible or markedly difficult.

Special Counsel: Breach of duty to attend → seek writ for compulsory appearance.
Defense: Forced escort risks safety & human-rights violations → continue in absentia under the statute.