**[Anchor]**
The trial of former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who is accused of being the mastermind behind a rebellion, will conclude today (the 13th).
The court, which had completed the evidence review for the defendants excluding former President Yoon last session, has firmly committed to finalize all proceedings today.
Let’s connect to the court.
Reporters Dong-hoon Lee and Jun-hyuk Bang, please come forward.
**[Reporter Dong-hoon Lee]**
Yes, the trial for former President Yoon Suk-yeol’s rebellion mastermind charges, which could not be concluded last time, will start at 9:30 AM in a short while.
The final arguments from former President Yoon’s side and the special prosecutor’s sentencing procedure will follow.
Reporter Bang, first, let’s look into today’s trial procedure. There seems to be a likelihood that the trial will be prolonged again today?
**[Reporter Jun-hyuk Bang]**
Yes, if we consider the procedures alone, it appears relatively simple.
The scheduled tasks include the evidence review and final arguments for former President Yoon, which could not be completed last time.
Following this, the presentation of the final opinion and sentencing by the special prosecutor and then the defendants’ final arguments will proceed.
The issue, however, is time.
Former President Yoon’s side has already warned last time that the evidence review and final arguments alone might take a minimum of 6 hours, up to 8 hours.
Given that former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun’s proceedings took over 10 hours last time, it’s reasonable to expect that a significant amount of time might be expended again by Yoon’s side.
The special prosecution has indicated that their final opinion and sentencing for Yoon and the 8 other defendants might take about 2 to 3 hours.
Even once the special prosecutor presents their sentencing recommendation, that won’t signal the end of proceedings.
Defendants will then offer their final statements, unrestricted by time limits set by the court, and this step also appears likely to consume a significant amount of time.
However, Presiding Judge, Ji Goo-yeon, has emphasized there will be no follow-up sessions, suggesting today will indeed conclude the trial, although predictions abound that it will extend past midnight tonight.
There’s tremendous public interest surrounding the sentence recommendation for former President Yoon. When can we expect it to be announced?
**[Reporter Dong-hoon Lee]**
Yes, as mentioned, the evidence review and final argument from Yoon’s side is expected to last at least 6 hours.
Considering that the court typically recesses from noon to 2 PM for lunch, despite the proceedings starting at 9:30 AM, Yoon’s portion may not conclude until at least 5 to 6 PM.
Therefore, many anticipate that the special prosecutor’s sentencing will occur in the evening.
It’s assumed that the special prosecutor, in their final opinion, will thoroughly review the charges, reflect on the significance of the December 3rd martial law event, delve into the positions and roles of each defendant, and elaborate on reasons for sentencing, although this remains slightly tentative.
Following their final opinion, the sentencing recommendation will begin, presumably with former President Yoon, the central figure in the December 3 martial law incident.
Regarding possible sentences, the special prosecutor’s options are extremely limited, given the statutory penalties of death or life imprisonment for rebellion chief charges.
Following a meeting with the prosecution team on the 8th, it’s understood that Special Prosecutor Jo Eun-seok made the ultimate decision on the sentencing.
Given the special prosecutor’s long-standing emphasis on stringent measures to prevent the resurgence of authoritarian regimes stifling public freedoms, it’s indicated that there was substantial support for the death penalty during the prosecution’s discussions.
During the decision trial for former Minister of Public Administration and Security Lee Sang-min yesterday, he underscored the classification of martial law as rebellion and a military coup, warning against the potential revival of archaic coups if participants aren’t strictly punished.
In contrast, given there were no casualties, the lack of attempts to proclaim additional martial law measures, and consideration of accepting the Assembly’s revocation requests, some opinions viewed life imprisonment as the more appropriate sentencing.
Can you outline the key points of contention in the trial as a means to gauge potential sentencing?
**[Reporter Jun-hyuk Bang]**
Yes, succinctly put, the core issue is whether rebellion charges are applicable concerning the December 3 martial law declaration.
Determining whether rebellion charges apply hinges on establishing whether a ‘commitment to subvert constitutional order’ was present, and whether it involved triggering an insurrection.
The special prosecutor argues that Yoon instigated an unconstitutional, unlawful December 3 martial law declaration, sparking an insurrection aiming to disrupt constitutional order.
Specifically, illicit martial law decree announcements, attempts to control the parliament and election commission, among other actions, are seen collectively as an insurrection.
Conversely, Yoon’s side maintains the rebellion charge’s fundamental requirements—a commitment to disrupt constitutional order and enacting insurrection—were absent, warranting a not guilty verdict.
Yoon’s defense posits the martial law was merely symbolic, aimed at alerting the public to the legislative dictatorship carried by the opposition and was an appeal for attention.
The special prosecutor, however, maintains that the presence of a commitment to disrupt constitutional order is sufficient for criminal charges, irrespective of whether the crime achieved its intended outcome.
**[Reporter Dong-hoon Lee]**
So, until the very end, both sides stand at a stalemate. That said, there were substantial testimonials contradicting Yoon’s claims, correct?
**[Reporter Jun-hyuk Bang]**
Yes, contrary to Yoon’s claim of no martial law planning or plotting, former Special Warfare Commander Kwak Jong-geun testified that Yoon mentioned exercising emergency powers, expressing an intent to “shoot and kill officials,” including former People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon.
Former National Intelligence Service Deputy Director Hong Jang-won, too, reiterated key testimonies of receiving an order from Yoon during martial law to “arrest them all.”
Additionally, when asked about receiving an arrest list or location tracking request from former Counterintelligence Bureau Chief Ye In-hyung, Yoon deflected accountability to his subordinates.
Former Commissioner General Jo Ji-ho, accused of involvement in parliamentary suppression under martial law, testified that Yoon directed him to “arrest the assembly members.”
The special prosecutor likely considers these elements when proceeding with sentencing, which will be followed by Yoon’s final statement, correct?
**[Reporter Dong-hoon Lee]**
Correct.
Given Yoon’s active participation in past trials, he’s expected to deliver a prepared final statement today.
Reflecting on his recent final statements, it seems evident he will again emphasize the necessity of the December 3 martial law.
This is a recurring argument from Yoon.
He attributes the order as a response to the legislative dictatorship, budget cuts, and excessive actions by the opposition party, describing the martial law as a warning measure and merely an appeal with minimal military deployment.
Echoing past impeachment trial arguments, he might insist investigations and trials simply follow predetermined conclusions, analogous to chasing a moon’s reflection on the water.
Additionally, as argued in other trials, he might reiterate that martial law declaration is a highly political act by a president, and judging a president’s exercise of emergency powers through criminal proceedings is inappropriate.
Presiding Judge Ji Goo-yeon has indicated that the trial will focus significantly on hearing the defendants’ statements, without imposing time limits.
However, it’s possible, as seen with former Minister Kim Yong-hyun’s defense team, for defendants to exploit the court’s attempt to secure the right to defense, extending their statements significantly.
While it seems the session might extend late into the night, the court will likely schedule a sentencing date as a final procedure?
**[Reporter Jun-hyuk Bang]**
Yes, many predict that the verdict for former President Yoon’s first-instance rebel mastermind trial will conclude by mid-next month.
Given the extensive evidence necessitating thorough review, many believe a verdict will be issued before the regular judicial staffing changes at the end of February.
If the matter extends into judicial reassignment, a new panel reviewing the case might necessitate several additional months solely for record examination.
Judicial trends currently seem unfavorable to Yoon.
The Constitutional Court already judged the martial law declaration and parliamentary blockade as violations of the constitution while impeaching Yoon.
Last month’s first-instance ruling for former Intelligence Commander Noh Sang-won also clarified the constitutional and legal violations inherent in the martial law preparations.
Furthermore, the first-instance verdict regarding Yoon’s “obstruction of arrest” is scheduled for this Friday, drawing substantial national interest amid consecutive judicial assessments.
This concludes our prepared report.
We will continue coverage of ongoing court developments.
This has been reported from the Seoul Central District Court.