From CIO Jurisdiction to Insurrection Charges: Yoon Faces Mounting Setbacks Ahead of Verdict [Legal Insight]

[Financial News] As court decisions related to the December 3 martial law declaration continue to come down, former President Yoon Suk Yeol appears to be facing mounting headwinds ahead of the first-instance verdict on whether he was the ringleader of an insurrection. Issues such as the jurisdiction of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and the drafting of the post hoc martial law proclamation have now been clarified, and the courts have determined that the December 3 martial law declaration constituted an act of insurrection. With Yoon’s verdict, viewed as the “climax” of these proceedings, scheduled for next month, observers say it will be difficult for him to avoid a substantial prison term.
According to the legal community on the 22nd, Criminal Agreement Division 25 of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Jee Kui-yeon, will hand down its first-instance verdict on June 19 in the case where former President Yoon is charged as the ringleader of an insurrection and with abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights.

According to the written judgment in former President Yoon’s “obstruction of arrest” case, Criminal Agreement Division 35 of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Baek Dae-hyun, recognized on the 16th that the CIO’s investigative authority extends to this matter. Yoon’s side had consistently argued in multiple trials that “the CIO has no authority to investigate the crime of insurrection, and therefore all arrest warrants and evidence obtained by the CIO are unlawful,” repeatedly invoking the doctrine of illegally collected evidence. However, the court rejected these arguments, effectively neutralizing Yoon’s key line of defense.
The court stated, “While investigating former President Yoon on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights, the CIO determined that the allegation that he was the ringleader of an insurrection constituted a related offense and accordingly opened an investigation,” adding, “Given the natural connection by which the allegation that former President Yoon was the ringleader of an insurrection would inevitably surface in the course of investigating the abuse-of-power charges, the CIO may investigate this as a related offense concerning the defendant’s role as ringleader of an insurrection.”
The court also held that the arrest warrant, search warrant, and detention warrant issued by the Seoul Western District Court at the CIO’s request were all lawful. Yoon’s claim that the issuance of his arrest and detention warrants exceeded the court’s territorial jurisdiction was thus rejected as well. Because the evidence collected by the CIO has been deemed admissible and meaningful, legal experts say it will inevitably bolster the prosecution’s efforts to prove Yoon’s insurrection charges.

According to the judgment in the case where former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was charged with engaging in key duties in an insurrection, Criminal Agreement Division 33 of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Lee Jin-kwan, defined the December 3 martial law declaration as both an act of insurrection and a loyalist coup. Yoon’s defense had argued that the declaration was merely “symbolic” martial law intended as a political message and therefore could not be linked to insurrection, but the court declined to accept that view.
In its written decision, the court cited factors such as control over the National Assembly and the National Election Commission, and censorship of the press and publications, and concluded, “Former President Yoon issued the proclamation with the intent to disrupt the constitutional order, and by mobilizing large numbers of military personnel and police officers, he instigated a riot of sufficient force to disturb the peace in at least one region.”
Because this is the first judicial determination on the December 3 martial law declaration, many now predict that the upcoming verdict on whether former President Yoon was the ringleader of an insurrection will not be able to diverge from it. Although each panel of judges must reach its own independent conclusion, legal experts note that it will be difficult for another division to simply overturn an existing court’s finding that the events amounted to insurrection. A lawyer who previously served as a presiding judge commented, “Even though every court makes its own independent judgment, it is not easy to reverse another division’s determination that there was an insurrection.”
This is also expected to have an unavoidable impact on the sentence imposed on former President Yoon. The court has characterized the martial law as an insurrection “from above” and a loyalist coup. In addition, by imposing a punishment-focused term on former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo rather than a more lenient or mitigated sentence, the court effectively established a direct and severe assessment of the criminal conduct. Some observers say that the 23-year prison term—significantly higher than the special prosecutor’s request for 15 years—reflects the court’s view of the grave seriousness of the crimes related to the martial law declaration. A legal community source predicted, “In light of the sentence handed down to former Prime Minister Han, it appears unlikely that former President Yoon will be able to avoid life imprisonment as well.”
theknight@fnnews.com Reporter Jung Kyung-soo Reporter