Yoon Jae-soon, former chief secretary to the president, and Lim Jong-deok, a member of the People Power Party, were acquitted in a first trial regarding allegations of intervening in personnel appointments at the National Security Office during the Yoon Suk-yeol administration.
The Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 23, presided over by Judge Oh Se-yong, dismissed the charges against Yoon and Lim on September 21, which included abuse of power, violation of the State Public Officials Act, and breach of the Anti-Corruption Act.
Previously, the special prosecutor's team had sought a five-year prison sentence for Yoon and a three-year sentence for Lim during the closing arguments in July.
A dismissal of charges indicates procedural flaws, concluding the trial without a determination of guilt or innocence regarding the substantive allegations.
The court stated, "The facts of this case do not fall within the scope of investigation defined by the Special Prosecutor Act, thus constituting an unauthorized prosecution," adding that the prosecution process violated legal regulations and was therefore null and void.
Yoon is accused of colluding with Lim, who was then the second deputy director of the National Security Office, and Im Gi-hoon, the then defense secretary, to appoint a specific officer to the National Crisis Management Center under the National Security Office in September 2023. This officer was allegedly recommended by a friend, who claimed that the individual was being overlooked for promotion due to their military academy background.
According to the special prosecutor's investigation, personnel appointments at the National Security Office typically involve recommendations from the Ministry of National Defense, yet the appointed officer was not among those recommended, and the appointment was made in an unusual manner by increasing the number of personnel selected.
The special prosecutor's team became aware of these personnel intervention allegations during the investigation into incidents involving North Korean drone infiltrations and subsequently indicted the individuals in December of last year.
However, the court found no relevance between this case and the drone incident as claimed by the special prosecutor. The court noted, "The personnel intervention occurred around August to September 2023, while the drone incident took place around October 2024, indicating a temporal gap of approximately 13 months," and emphasized that the locations and actors involved were entirely different, with no evidence of collusion or interaction between the suspects in the two cases.
The court further stated, "The scope of the special prosecutor's investigation must be recognized only within a reasonable range of relevance. Expanding the scope of investigation based solely on media allegations or perceived necessity could infringe upon constitutional principles of due process and the legal principle of criminal law."
Additionally, the court rejected the special prosecutor's argument that evidence obtained through warrants issued for the drone incident could also be used in this case, stating that the evidence was not common to both cases.
The court highlighted that despite confirming in November 2025 that National Security Office officials were unrelated to the drone incident, the special prosecutor did not transfer the case to investigative agencies but chose to prosecute directly, indicating that this was an improper investigation inconsistent with the special prosecutor's temporary and exceptional status, necessitating strict judicial oversight.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.