Acquitted at both first and second trial

Appeals court says false testimony hard to prove

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol sits in the defendant's seat at Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, during a first-trial sentencing hearing Jan. 16 on charges including obstruction of special official duties, aiding a fugitive and abuse of authority. [Provided by Seoul Central District Court]
Former President Yoon Suk Yeol sits in the defendant's seat at Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, during a first-trial sentencing hearing Jan. 16 on charges including obstruction of special official duties, aiding a fugitive and abuse of authority. [Provided by Seoul Central District Court]

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol has been acquitted for the second time on perjury charges stemming from his testimony at the insurrection trial of former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. The appeals court, like the court of first instance, found it difficult to conclude that Yoon's statements contradicted his own memory.

The Seoul High Court's First Criminal Division, presided over by Judge Yoon Seong-sik, handed down a not-guilty verdict Wednesday in the second-trial sentencing on the perjury charges against the former president, upholding the first-trial ruling.

The appeals court said it could not find, beyond reasonable doubt, that Yoon's testimony — that he had already planned to convene a Cabinet meeting before Han recommended doing so — was false.

Yoon was indicted on perjury charges after appearing as a witness last year at Han's trial on charges of playing a key role in the insurrection. The special prosecutor argued that Yoon had given false testimony by claiming he had planned to hold a Cabinet meeting before Han made any such recommendation on the day emergency martial law was declared.

During Han's trial, when asked whether Han had suggested calling in more Cabinet members, Yoon said, "I had already been thinking that we needed to meet the minimum requirements, since a Cabinet meeting had to be held." He added, "I naturally thought we needed to meet the requirements for a Cabinet meeting."

The special prosecution team argued that Yoon had originally summoned only six Cabinet members with no intention of holding a formal Cabinet meeting, and only moved to secure the quorum after hearing Han's recommendation.

On that basis, the special prosecutors deemed Yoon's testimony — that he had intended from the outset to summon the necessary members for a Cabinet meeting — to constitute perjury.

The first-instance court, however, also acquitted Yoon in May.

That court similarly found it likely that Yoon had planned from the beginning to convene the Cabinet members regardless of Han's recommendation, and concluded that his courtroom statements could not be seen as contradicting his own recollection.

Among the grounds cited was the fact that documents to be handed to then-Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok had been prepared in advance.

The first-instance court also said Yoon's statement that he had intended from the outset to convene a Cabinet meeting with a proper quorum amounted to an opinion or subjective assessment. It could not be regarded as a statement of fact made contrary to his memory — a requirement for a perjury conviction.

The appeals court on Wednesday reached a not-guilty verdict on the same grounds.


notstrong@heraldcorp.com