Appellate arguments conclude on the 29th for former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who received a suspended prison sentence at trial for making false statements during his presidential campaign.
The Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 2-1, presided over by High Court Judge Baek Seung-yeop, will hold the final hearing in Yoon's appeal on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act at 9:30 a.m. that day, according to legal sources on the 29th.
Yoon was indicted for falsely stating at a Kwanhun Club debate on Dec. 14, 2021, during the campaign for the 20th presidential election, that he had never introduced a lawyer to former Yongsan Tax Office chief Yoon Woo-jin, the older brother of former senior prosecutor Yoon Dae-jin. He also faces charges of making a false statement in a Jan. 17 interview the following year at the launch of the Buddhist Leaders Forum, when he said of shaman Jeon Seong-bae that while he had been introduced to him by a party official, he had never met him together with Kim Keon-hee.
The trial court found all of those statements criminal in July and sentenced Yoon to one year and six months in prison, suspended for three years. The court said he had made false statements in his own favor in a presidential election that selects the nation's highest public official.
The special counsel team led by Min Joong-ki asked the court at the first appellate hearing to reject Yoon's appeal and uphold the sentence handed down at trial. Yoon countered that if answering "that's not the case" over two or three seconds counts as making a false statement, it raises doubts about whether campaigning is realistically possible.
If Yoon's conviction is finalized with a fine of 1 million won or more, the People Power Party must return the campaign expenses it was reimbursed by the National Election Commission. The party received about 39.7 billion won in reimbursements for the 20th presidential election.
Separately, appellate arguments also conclude for former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison at trial on charges of taking part in the Dec. 3 emergency martial law declaration.
The Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 1, presided over by Senior Judge Yoon Sung-sik, will hold the final appellate hearing at 2 p.m. for Park, who was indicted on charges including playing a key role in an insurrection. Arguments will also conclude for former Government Legislation Minister Lee Wan-kyu, who was indicted for violating the law on testimony and appraisal before the National Assembly.
Park is accused of failing to stop Yoon's Dec. 3 emergency martial law declaration despite recognizing it was illegal, and of mobilizing the Justice Ministry's prosecution bureau, correctional service, and immigration and foreign policy office to support the martial law command's joint investigation headquarters. He is also suspected of instructing the immigration chief to have a travel-ban team on standby and the correctional service chief to secure detention space.
Lee was indicted on charges of giving false testimony before the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee in December 2024, when he described a gathering at a safe house in Samcheong-dong as a simple social meeting with no discussion of martial law.
The trial court convicted Park of playing a key role in an insurrection. It found that he was aware the purpose of the martial law declaration was to neutralize the National Assembly, and that the steps taken at the Justice Ministry amounted to carrying out instructions relayed from Yoon.
The court dismissed the charges against Park over allegations that he quashed an investigation into Kim Keon-hee, as well as the perjury charge against Lee, ruling that those allegations fell outside the special counsel's scope of investigation. The special counsel team led by Cho Eun-suk appealed the dismissal of the perjury charge against Lee but withdrew its appeal on the charge against Park under the law banning improper solicitation. Lee appealed as well, saying he sought acquittal on the merits, but the Supreme Court ultimately rejected it.
