The legal team for Yoo Byung-ho, a member of the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI) indicted over allegations of conducting a lenient audit regarding the relocation of the presidential residence during the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, has requested the court to dismiss the indictment.

During the second preparatory hearing for the trial on charges of abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights held today (November 6) before Criminal Settlement Division 23 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Oh Se-yong), Yoo's defense counsel argued that "there are significant legal flaws in the indictment process," and therefore the indictment should be dismissed.

Dismissal of an indictment is a procedure that terminates a lawsuit without judging the substance of the case when the prosecution process violates the law.

The defense pointed out that the indictment drafted by the 2nd Comprehensive Special Prosecutor Team led by Kwon Chang-young conclusively included internal BAI rumors irrelevant to the criminal charges and separate allegations that have not been indicted.

The defense noted, "This instills negative preconceptions in the court, constituting a procedural violation and a breach of the rule against the submission of the indictment, which warrants the dismissal of the indictment."

They also raised claims that the special prosecutor team collected evidence unlawfully.

The defense argued that while the Special Prosecutor Act was amended on July 21 of this year to include allegations of audit obstruction within the scope of the investigation, the special prosecutor team collected most of the evidence prior to that date.

Furthermore, the defense argued that even when looking at the substance of the case, Yoo never gave instructions of the nature described in the indictment, and even if he had, the charge of abuse of authority would not be established, meaning he should be acquitted.

In response, the special prosecutor team rebutted, "This case is a crime covertly and systematically committed within a state institution through solicitation and instructions, making it difficult to grasp the substance if only the constituent elements are briefly stated by its very nature." They added, "Contents regarding basic facts, premise facts, motive, process, and background cannot be seen as causing prejudice in the court or hindering the understanding of the substance."

The special prosecutor team also pointed out that this case is included in the scope of the investigation specified in the pre-amendment Comprehensive Special Prosecutor Act, and noted that this was the reason the court issued an arrest warrant for Yoo prior to the implementation of the amended law.

The court stated, "When I reviewed the indictment, the sections detailing the premise facts and basic facts appeared rather extensive compared to the specific criminal facts," adding, "As this could cause delays in the proceedings, corrections or deletions may be necessary."

The court concluded the preparatory hearing proceedings today and decided to hold the first formal trial on November 20.

(Photo: Yonhap News)