The special prosecution team investigating the insurrection case has requested a fine of 10 million won ($10,000) for Yoon Suk Yeol, who was previously acquitted of perjury charges in the trial of former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo.
During the appeal hearing held on August 19 at the Seoul High Court, the prosecution asked the court to overturn the lower court's not guilty verdict and impose a fine of 10 million won along with a payment order.
Unlike the initial trial, where the prosecution sought a two-year prison sentence, they have now shifted to requesting a fine in the appeal.
The prosecution explained their reasoning, stating, "The defendant has been sentenced to life imprisonment for leading the insurrection and 30 years for general treason in the first trial, and he recently received a confirmed sentence of seven years for obstructing special public duties. Considering the purpose of punishment and the effectiveness of execution, we believe a fine is appropriate for achieving a substantial punitive effect."
Yoon appeared as a witness in Han's trial last November. When asked by the court if he believed it was necessary to call the required personnel to the Cabinet meeting from the beginning, he responded, "Yes. I knew that a Cabinet meeting was necessary since we were declaring martial law to inform the world." The prosecution claims this statement was perjury.
According to the prosecution's investigation, Yoon initially called only six Cabinet members without intending to hold a Cabinet meeting. After hearing Han's suggestion, he later summoned six more members, including Choi Sang-mok, the former Minister of Economy and Finance, to meet the quorum for the meeting.
In previous hearings, the prosecution presented evidence, including CCTV footage from the presidential office's reception room, stating, "Even after the additional Cabinet members arrived, no formal meeting was held, and there was an attempt to declare martial law without waiting for the second group of summoned members. Therefore, the testimony that a Cabinet meeting was planned before Han's suggestion is false."
In contrast, Yoon's defense team completely denied the charges. In their closing argument, they stated, "Most of the objective evidence, including CCTV footage and investigation reports, actually proves the defendant's innocence," arguing that the second summoning of Cabinet members began at 9:14 PM on December 3, before Yoon's private meeting with Han. They also criticized the prosecution for abusing its prosecutorial authority by filing charges without conducting interviews or requesting written opinions.
Yoon himself defended his actions during a five-minute closing statement, saying, "Due to security concerns, we initially called only a few members for discussion, and then we needed to hold a Cabinet meeting with a quorum to declare martial law, so we called additional members. If we weren't going to hold a Cabinet meeting, we could have just called the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defense; why would we have called other ministers like the Minister of Foreign Affairs?"
In the earlier trial, the court found that Yoon appeared to have planned to summon additional Cabinet members regardless of Han's suggestion, and deemed his courtroom testimony as subjective, leading to a not guilty verdict. The prosecution has appealed, citing factual misinterpretation and legal misunderstanding.
The court concluded the arguments on this day and is set to deliver its ruling on Yoon's perjury appeal on September 16.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.