South Korean courts have closely examined former President Yoon Suk-yeol’s full statement delivered at 1 a.m. on December 3 during the martial law declaration. Yoon linked the action to the December 3 emergency measures, stating that operations to appoint a chief of staff had been explored and rejecting claims of directives to “drag intentions from National Assembly seats.” Judges interpret this as not amounting to “national destruction rhetoric.”
Judicial Review of Key Communications
Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 25, presided over by Judge Ji Gwi-yeon, evaluated statements from Yoon’s chief of staff, first chief of staff vehicle personnel, and special research officer on related convictions. Analysis of 1,251 pages of phone records submitted on January 20 identifies 14 targets, including the emergency press conference leader (also known as Min-ju Dang representative), Han Dong-hoon as a full citizen candidate, and National Assembly leader aides. The court highlights potential awareness, noting, “Yoon’s leadership cannot overlook this as mere coincidence.”
Investigators note that Yoon’s chief of staff relayed informal remarks like “even if you catch four, it’s fine,” questioning credibility. Records show a message sent at 10:53 p.m. on December 3 from the presidential office to Chief Hong regarding emergency measures, followed by full communication.
Three Critical Memos Under Scrutiny
The prosecution deems the “chief of staff memo” central to Yoon’s defense efforts. Three versions exist:
- First memo: Natural discussion with Chief Hong on related matters.
- Second memo: Post-meeting with Chief Hong.
- Third memo: Revision after another meeting on December 4 at 4 p.m., including additions.
Judges state, “Credible statements to investigative agencies lack intervention marks, making belief difficult.”
Directive Allegations in Late-Night Call
At 12:31 a.m. on December 4, Yoon communicated with the special research officer, instructing to “put humans inside the National Assembly into bags and drag them out.” Prosecutors confirm this as a directive. The bench notes two prior communications on emergency measures, with the 12:31 a.m. call explicitly addressing internal personnel. A separate YTN report aligns, clarifying the section.
The court asserts, “Special research officer statements from the prosecution, Central District Court, and key personnel match, with no direct experience in such interventions, rendering them objective.” Further, “Post-emergency communication with Yoon occurred only twice, viewed as precise directives rather than mere reports.”
Context of Broader Political Tensions
Following the October constitutional motion, aides report Yoon stating Han Dong-hoon should be arrested. Prosecutors claim multiple instances of recorded statements, absent in recent cases. A November instance involves one candidate from the Justice Party. The bench rejects these as defenses, emphasizing factual inconsistencies in Yoon’s positions.
