尹 '체포방해' 징역 7년 확정…계엄 583일 만 / 연합뉴스TV (YonhapnewsTV)

[Anchor] Former President Yoon Suk-yeol has had his 7-year prison sentence for "obstruction of arrest" confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that there were no errors in the judgments of the second trial, which differed from those of the first trial. We will hear the details from the reporters of the Social Affairs Legal Team. Reporters Lee Dong-hoon and Ahn Chae-won, please join us. [Reporter Lee Dong-hoon] Yes, as you mentioned, the Supreme Court has confirmed the 7-year prison sentence for former President Yoon in connection with the charge of "obstruction of arrest." We will now review the details of today's sentencing. Reporter Ahn, first, how was the sentencing conducted? [Reporter Ahn Chae-won] Yes, the Supreme Court dismissed all of former President Yoon Suk-yeol's appeals, thereby confirming the 7-year sentence handed down by the lower court. This is the first final ruling issued against former President Yoon since the December 3rd Martial Law Declaration. Justice Lee Heung-gu took the lead in reading the verdict. The sentencing took approximately 15 minutes. After explaining the reasons for the legal judgments on each charge and stating that they accept the ruling of the second trial, the court dismissed the appeals filed by both the Special Prosecutor and former President Yoon's side, thereby finalizing the sentence. Former President Yoon did not appear before the Supreme Court today. He watched the sentencing results from the courtroom with the court's permission during the trial for the ringleader of the insurrection held at the Seoul High Court. Former President Yoon watched the live broadcast of the sentencing via his lawyer's mobile phone and stared only at the screen without any noticeable change in expression. Upon hearing the sentencing results, former President Yoon nodded while talking with his lawyers and even let out a hollow laugh. Immediately after the sentencing, former President Yoon's side issued a statement announcing that they would challenge the unconstitutionality of the ruling through a judicial appeal. Former President Yoon's side stated, "The Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal in a timely manner, even more urgent than for ordinary cases, while skipping even a full court hearing, is tantamount to a 'deficient deliberation' that effectively abandons its function as the highest court of the judiciary, and is nothing short of the politicization of the judiciary." At the same time, they stated, "The defense team plans to challenge the unconstitutionality of this ruling through constitutional court procedures, such as appeals to the court, to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution." Reporter Lee, let's take a look at the Supreme Court's specific judgment. [Reporter Lee Dong-hoon] First, the Supreme Court allocated most of its sentencing time to its judgment on the charge of obstruction of arrest in the second trial. The conclusion was to fully recognize the investigative authority of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). The Supreme Court first pointed out that even though the President enjoys immunity from prosecution, he can be prosecuted while in office if he commits crimes of insurrection or treason, and therefore deemed basic investigations possible. It further stated that the CIO can investigate crimes that have a direct connection to the offenses of high-ranking public officials. In other words, the court ruled that it was lawful for the CIO to investigate the crime of insurrection after directly becoming aware of it while investigating other crimes of former President Yoon—specifically, abuse of power related to the declaration of a state of emergency—after receiving a complaint. In particular, the Supreme Court explained that not only does the evidence between the two crimes overlap, but the facts are bound to naturally be revealed during the investigation process. Ultimately, the appeal filed by former President Yoon’s side, arguing that the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) lacks investigative authority regarding the crime of insurrection, was not accepted. Along with this, the court also rejected former President Yoon’s claim that the search and seizure of the presidential residence and other locations was unlawful, as they could not be viewed as detrimental to the vital interests of the state. The Supreme Court also upheld the lower court’s judgment that former President Yoon infringed upon the right to deliberation of members who were unable to attend the Cabinet meeting. While emphasizing the constitutional function of the Cabinet meeting that each member must be able to deliberate on state affairs, the court viewed the fact that the meeting was convened only for some members or that those physically unable to attend were notified at the last minute as an infringement of the members' legal rights. In delivering this ...