Yoon Suk Yeol, the former president, has received a confirmed prison sentence of seven years for obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC). This ruling marks the first Supreme Court decision related to Yoon since the declaration of martial law 583 days ago.
On July 9, the Supreme Court's third division, led by Justice Lee Suk-yeon, upheld the lower court's sentence of seven years for charges including obstruction of special public duties and abuse of power.
The Supreme Court stated, "The abuse of presidential authority constitutes a high-ranking public official crime, thus the ACRC has investigative authority." It affirmed the legality of the ACRC's investigation, noting, "There are no errors in the lower court's judgment regarding logic, experience, or misinterpretation of the law." However, Yoon did not appear in court as attendance was not mandatory for the ruling.
Yoon was indicted last year for using presidential security personnel to obstruct the ACRC's execution of an arrest warrant at his residence in Hannam-dong after declaring martial law on December 3, 2024. He faces additional charges for infringing on the rights of nine cabinet members by convening only select officials for a cabinet meeting, creating a false declaration of martial law, and directing the dissemination of misleading press guidance to foreign media.
The special prosecutor's team sought a ten-year sentence in both the first and second trials. The first trial acknowledged significant portions of the charges but sentenced Yoon to five years, while the second trial increased the sentence to seven years.
Both the special prosecutor's office and Yoon's legal team appealed the lower court's decision, but the Supreme Court dismissed all appeals on this day.
Following the confirmation of the seven-year sentence, the ACRC and Yoon's legal team issued contrasting statements.
The ACRC remarked, "Despite various legal controversies surrounding the ACRC's investigative authority and procedures, the court has consistently ruled on these issues from the warrant issuance stage through the first and second trials to the Supreme Court, concluding the relevant matters." They view the ruling as a final judicial determination of their investigative procedures and authority.
In contrast, Yoon's legal team expressed deep regret over the Supreme Court's handling of such a significant case without sufficient deliberation, emphasizing the constitutional principles of rule of law and warrant authority. They cited Article 84 of the Constitution, questioning whether 'compulsory investigation during the president's term' is permissible, a critical constitutional issue for the head of state. They criticized lower courts for avoiding a clear legal judgment on this matter and noted that the Supreme Court ignored this serious legal premise in dismissing the appeal.
The legal team plans to challenge the constitutionality of the ruling through constitutional court procedures, asserting their commitment to conduct all processes diligently and responsibly within the bounds of law and the Constitution.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.