Yoon's Defense Team: "Demand for Chief Justice's Resignation, Hitler's Revival... Unconstitutional Special Court for Rebellion"

[Financial News] Yoon Seok-yeol's former presidential legal team strongly criticized the current government and ruling party's mention of Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's resignation as "justification of elected dictatorship and revival of Hitler."
Yoon's former presidential defense team stated in a position paper on the afternoon of the 15th, "The presidential office's remarks that 'there is a hierarchy of power' and 'I agree with the demand for the Chief Justice's resignation' aim to justify 'elected dictatorship,' where elected power can exercise power arbitrarily and indefinitely."
They emphasized, "The separation of powers is a fundamental principle of democracy," adding, "While the president and members of the National Assembly are directly elected by the people, the courts also have equal status as they are entrusted with power by the sovereignty of the people." 
They continued, "The reason the court interprets and applies laws enacted by the National Assembly, and the Constitutional Court reviews the constitutionality of laws and can decide on presidential impeachment, is because the judiciary and the Constitutional Court have equal status."
In particular, the defense team criticized, "If the ruling party and government share the same perception, what was the basis for the Constitutional Court's impeachment of former President Yoon, who was supported by a majority of the people?" They further criticized, "The government and ruling party show an unconstitutional perception that they can intervene in the judiciary if the results are not to their liking, perceiving the judiciary as a subordinate institution." Citing Article 106 of the Constitution, which guarantees the status of judges, they mentioned, "Nowhere in the Constitution is the hierarchy of power defined. The president cannot discuss the tenure of the Chief Justice in violation of the principle of separation of powers."
Regarding the 'special court for rebellion' mentioned by the ruling party, they defined it as an 'unconstitutional attempt' to undermine judicial independence. The defense team cited Article 110 of the Constitution, which only recognizes 'military courts' as special courts, and Article 103, which mandates judges to independently adjudicate according to conscience.
They also stated, "The ultimate purpose of judicial independence is a fair trial," emphasizing that "talking about the resignation of the Chief Justice and the establishment of a special court for rebellion itself shakes the independence of trials, coercing the judiciary into a biased conclusion, a predetermined conclusion."
 




scottchoi15@fnnews.com Choi Eun-sol Reporter