On April 29, the Seoul High Court’s Criminal Division 1, a panel dedicated to insurrection-related cases led by Presiding Judge Yoon Seong-sik, sentenced Yoon to seven years for aggravated obstruction of official duties, abuse of power and related offenses. The term is two years longer than the five-year sentence in the first trial, but below the 10 years sought by the special prosecutor.
The appeals court, unlike the first trial, found Yoon guilty on most charges. It upheld guilty verdicts on counts including abuse of power for infringing Cabinet members’ deliberation rights; violating the Presidential Records Act and damaging official documents; instructing abuse of authority under the Presidential Security Act involving a secure phone; and aggravated obstruction tied to blocking the execution of the arrest warrant.
The court said it viewed as especially serious Yoon’s use of Presidential Security Service personnel to physically block CIO prosecutors from executing the warrant. Yoon’s side had argued the CIO lacked authority to investigate insurrection and that executing a warrant at the official residence, designated a protected military facility, would be illegal without a commander’s consent. The court rejected those claims.
“The CIO has authority to investigate abuse-of-power offenses by high-ranking officials, and insurrection is a related offense discovered in the course of that investigation and therefore falls within the scope,” the court said. Citing the relationship between Article 110 of the Constitution and the Military Bases and Installations Act, it added that when national security conflicts with finding the substantive truth, “the president must not use national security as a shield to evade his own criminal responsibility.”
The court also criticized security officials for forming a scrum to block prosecutors’ entry. It called it an act that “mobilized security service employees, who are state officials, as if they were the defendant’s private soldiers to obstruct the lawful duties of other state officials,” and said it undermined the foundations of the rule of law.
The appeals court also reversed parts of the first ruling, finding Yoon guilty of infringing the deliberation rights of two Cabinet members — former Land, Infrastructure and Transport Minister Park Sang-woo and Industry and Trade Minister Ahn Duk-geun — and of ordering an overseas public relations secretary to draft and distribute press guidance, or PG.
The first trial had found guilt only as to seven members who did not receive any notice to attend. The appeals court took a stricter view, saying Cabinet meetings require sufficient governmentwide deliberation and that notice must be given to all members with enough time to realistically attend. It said giving formal notice at a time when attendance was effectively impossible amounted to depriving members of their deliberation rights and hollowing out the constitutional role of the Cabinet through abuse of power.
On the PG count, which the first trial had acquitted, the court cited the special prosecutor’s findings that Yoon instructed the overseas public relations secretary to distribute false claims to foreign media, including that access to the National Assembly had not been blocked and that there was no intent whatsoever to destroy the constitutional order.
“Government press releases must be based on objective facts and must not exaggerate or state uncertain matters as definitive,” the court said, stressing a duty of good faith. It said spreading information contrary to the facts to foreign media dealt a major blow to South Korea’s international credibility and deceived the public’s right to know, constituting an abuse of power.
The court, however, upheld not-guilty verdicts on charges of using a falsely prepared official document related to an after-the-fact department and on allegations of collusion with Kim Shin, head of the security service’s family protection division.
In explaining the sentence, the court said Yoon, despite being president with a duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the nation, hollowed out constitutional procedures and obstructed judicial action with physical force to avoid legal responsibility. It also cited what it described as a lack of remorse after the investigation began, saying his repeated legal claim that the CIO lacked investigative authority weighed against him in sentencing.
After the seven-year sentence was announced, Yoon left the courtroom with a blank expression. His lawyers said they could not accept the ruling and would appeal.
Earlier, the court and police tightly controlled access by Yoon supporters. The National Court Administration blocked entrances to the West Building of the Seoul Central District Court, where the courtroom is located, using police buses and barricades, and deployed riot police nearby. Reporters and spectators entered through the East Building.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.