The special counsel team investigating the insurrection case argued in an appellate court today that the first-instance acquittal of former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was charged with perjury during the trial of former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, was based on a misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.
The special counsel team presented these grounds for appeal during the first hearing of the second trial, held at the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 1 (Presiding Judge Yoon Seong-sik).
The special counsel team pointed out that the first trial court made an erroneous judgment regarding the circumstances under which former President Yoon summoned cabinet members just before declaring martial law.
Former President Yoon was charged with perjury for his testimony during former Prime Minister Han's insurrection trial last November. When asked by the court if he had intended to summon the necessary personnel for a cabinet meeting from the beginning, Yoon replied, "Yes. Since I was declaring martial law to the whole world, I naturally knew that a cabinet meeting was necessary."
The special counsel team believes that former President Yoon initially had no intention of holding a cabinet meeting and had only summoned six cabinet members. They argue that it was only after receiving a suggestion from former Prime Minister Han that he summoned six additional officials, including former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy and Finance Choi Sang-mok, to meet the quorum for a cabinet meeting.
Consequently, the team concluded that Yoon's statement—that he intended to summon those necessary for a cabinet meeting before Han's suggestion—was a false statement contrary to his memory.
However, the first-instance court ruled in May that it appeared former President Yoon had planned to summon additional cabinet members regardless of former Prime Minister Han's suggestion, and therefore, it was not a false statement.
The court further noted that the statement regarding his intent to convene a "cabinet meeting" from the start was merely a subjective evaluation of whether the meetings of cabinet members, divided into two groups, held legal validity as a cabinet meeting.
The court's position is that the crime of perjury, which punishes statements contrary to one's memory regarding facts, does not apply in this case.
The special counsel team countered, "Former President Yoon prepared a written list of the cabinet members to be summoned initially, but the additional invitees were announced verbally, and it was physically impossible to complete the cabinet meeting deliberations before the declaration of martial law," adding, "The judgment that he planned to summon all cabinet members from the beginning is a factual error."
In response, former President Yoon's attorney argued, "Even if former Prime Minister Han told former President Yoon that a cabinet meeting must be held to declare martial law, the cabinet meeting was not held because of that," adding, "The special counsel indicted him while trapped in a logical bias regarding causality."
Former President Yoon also took the opportunity to speak directly, stating, "When I told those who were initially summoned that I would declare martial law, they all opposed it quite vehemently," and argued, "Common sense dictates that in such a situation, it does not make sense for former Prime Minister Han to say, 'We are opposed, so let's hold a cabinet meeting and hear about it.'"
The court decided to hold an additional hearing on July 28 and summon former Prime Minister Han as a witness for questioning.
(Photo: Yonhap News)