Court dismisses and rejects in part Yoon camp’s request for constitutional review of ‘Insurrection Special Counsel Act’

According to The Financial News, the court has partially concluded that there is no problem with the request filed by former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s defense team for a constitutional review related to the so‐called ‘Insurrection Special Counsel Act.’
According to the legal community on the 19th, Criminal Agreement Division 35 of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Baek Dae-hyun, Chief Judge of the Criminal Division, on the 16th partially dismissed and partially rejected a request by Yoon’s side for a constitutional review of the ‘Insurrection and Foreign Aggression Special Counsel Act.’ A request for a constitutional review is a procedure by which a defendant asks the trial court to refer the law underlying the charges to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
The bench reviewed Article 2(1) (scope of investigation), Article 3 (procedure for appointing the special counsel), Article 6(4) (matters related to the Presidential Records Act), Article 11(4), (5) and (7) (broadcasting of trials), Article 13 (special counsel’s press briefings), and Article 25 (plea bargaining and sentence reduction). Among these, the court found no problem with the provisions concerning the scope of investigation, the appointment procedure for the special counsel, broadcasting of trials, and plea bargaining, and therefore dismissed the request as to those parts. It rejected the remainder on the ground that the formal requirements for referral had not been met.
The same panel on the 16th handed down the first-instance verdict on former President Yoon in a case involving charges including obstruction of special official duties, commonly referred to as ‘obstruction of arrest.’ At that time, the court allowed live broadcasting of the sentencing, a decision that is seen as reflecting the above reasoning.
Yoon’s side filed the request for a constitutional review on September 8 last year. His defense team explained at the time that it was “an unavoidable measure to correct a reality in which the constitutionally guaranteed principles of separation of powers and warrant requirement, as well as the supplementary and exceptional nature of the special counsel system, have been seriously undermined.”
theknight@fnnews.com Jung Kyung-soo Reporter