Han Duck-soo, a former Prime Minister, refused to testify as a witness in the appeal hearing of former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was acquitted of perjury charges in a lower court. The appeal hearing took place on July 28 at the Seoul High Court, which specializes in cases related to insurrection.
During the hearing, Han appeared as a witness but stated before the questioning began, "My case is currently pending in the Supreme Court, and I am concerned that answering questions could negatively impact my own trial. Therefore, I will exercise my right to refuse to testify under Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act." The court acknowledged Han's legal right to refuse to testify.
Following this, Han declined to answer any questions from the special prosecutor's office regarding the insurrection case. The special prosecutor had questions about the authenticity of Han's statements related to the insurrection, the circumstances surrounding the movement of officials on the night of the martial law declaration, whether there was a proposal to summon additional cabinet members, and the distribution process of the martial law declaration. Han consistently responded, "I will not testify." However, he briefly confirmed a factual question about receiving a call from the President on December 3, 2024, at 8:40 PM, stating, "That's correct." The witness questioning concluded just 15 minutes after it began due to Han's refusal to testify.
After the witness questioning, Yoon's defense team completely refuted the special prosecutor's allegations. They emphasized that the most critical aspect of declaring martial law was maintaining order and ensuring public safety, which required extreme security measures. They argued that instead of summoning all cabinet members at once, a phased approach was taken, first calling key security and law enforcement officials, followed by economic and civilian officials. They noted that there is no legal obligation to notify all cabinet members individually, placing this decision within the President's discretion.
The defense also addressed the location of the meeting on the day of the martial law declaration, clarifying that it was held in the 5th-floor reception room rather than the 7th-floor cabinet meeting room, and explained the omission of certain procedural steps. They stated, "If we had prepared as if it were a regular meeting in the 7th-floor meeting room, maintaining security would have been impossible," and argued that the omission of pre-distribution of agenda items and the use of electronic payment systems were consistent with the nature of an emergency cabinet meeting.
The defense criticized the special prosecutor's use of vague language in the indictment, stating that the principle of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was not met, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
Yoon also spoke up, questioning, "If we were not going to hold a cabinet meeting, why would we call the Prime Minister and cabinet members to the Yongsan Presidential Office during a time of heightened security?" He further clarified that the documents he sought signatures for were merely attendance confirmation forms, not official documents, and asserted that his actions were legitimate, contrasting them with past instances of constitutional violations during the May 1980 Gwangju uprising.
After hearing from both sides, the court ordered both the special prosecutor and Yoon's defense team to submit additional opinions regarding discrepancies between Han's statements in other cases and Yoon's previous testimonies. The court decided to conclude the hearing without additional witnesses and scheduled the next session for August 19, where final arguments will be presented, along with Yoon's closing statement.
Yoon was indicted last November for allegedly testifying falsely that Han had suggested convening a cabinet meeting before the martial law declaration. During the previous trial, when asked by the special prosecutor if Han had proposed calling a cabinet meeting to create a legal facade, Yoon responded, "Cabinet members are not puppets to create a facade; isn't that a question that reflects too much bias?" However, the lower court acquitted Yoon in May, stating that perjury applies only to statements that contradict one's memory, and subjective evaluations or statements do not constitute perjury. This marked the first acquittal for Yoon in a case related to the martial law declaration.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.