Today, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal concerning significant legal issues in the original judgment. While the legal team respects the Supreme Court’s decision, we express deep regret that the highest court concluded such a critical case without sufficient deliberation, particularly in light of the rule of law and the warrant requirement, which are the foundations of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

The original judgment in this case contained significant legal problems that conflict with the essence of existing Supreme Court precedents and En Banc rulings, as follows:

First, the question of whether "compulsory investigation during tenure" is permissible under the President's criminal immunity guaranteed by Article 84 of the Constitution is a high-level constitutional issue essential to protecting the constitutional status of the Head of State and the Chief of the Executive Branch. Nevertheless, the lower courts avoided a clear legal judgment on this, and the Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal while completely ignoring this serious legal premise.

Second, the issue concerns the lack of investigative authority of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and the violation of the principle of legal reservation. It is a total denial of the constitutional principle of legal reservation for the CIO—which lacks authority to investigate insurrection under the CIO Act—to arbitrarily label related crimes and force through an investigation.

Third, the ruling effectively neutralized Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits search and seizure in military secret locations. It distorted the mandatory regulation requiring the consent of the person in charge when conducting search and seizure within national security zones such as the official residence or government offices, thereby undermining the essence of the warrant requirement.

Fourth, it interpreted the deliberation power of State Council members as a "personal right" under the crime of abuse of power. The lower court’s judgment, which used the deliberation power—a duty-based authority of a state agency—as a basis for conviction, contradicts the spirit of previous Supreme Court En Banc rulings that have limited the framing of the infringement of deliberation and voting rights as "obstruction of the exercise of rights" under the crime of abuse of power.

Fifth, it distorted the legal principles regarding the crime of abuse of power in relation to public relations activities concerning foreign media (PG). Foreign media briefings by the spokesperson and the secretary for overseas public relations are part of the routine operation of the state to convey the President's political and diplomatic positions to the international community and constitute legitimate performance of duties. Nevertheless, the lower court determined some of the content to be "false" and applied the crime of abuse of power; by upholding this, the Supreme Court maintained a judgment contrary to the principles of legality and strict interpretation, effectively excluding the legal reasoning of past En Banc rulings through a small bench.

Sixth, the judgment on the abuse of power regarding control and measures within a security zone under the Presidential Security Service Act also contradicts existing precedents. By upholding the lower court’s decision that measures taken for security and protection purposes based on the Presidential Security Service Act constitute abuse of power, the Supreme Court has caused a result where the same legal principles of abuse of power are arbitrarily applied differently in the field of presidential security.

Beyond the issues above, this case—where the lower court’s legal confusion is manifest and which involves numerous high-level constitutional issues with profound impact on the structure of state power and the fundamental rights of citizens—should have been referred to an En Banc session of the Supreme Court for in-depth consideration. Ensuring consistency in the interpretation of laws and securing the predictability of trials is the fundamental duty of the Supreme Court as the highest court.

Nevertheless, the fact that the Supreme Court skipped even an En Banc deliberation and dismissed the appeal in a more rushed manner than a general case is nothing less than "insufficient deliberation," an abandonment of the judiciary's role as the court of last resort, and the politicization of the judiciary. This is a severe violation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Accordingly, to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, our legal team plans to challenge the unconstitutionality of this ruling through constitutional court procedures, such as a constitutional complaint, and will proceed with all processes faithfully and responsibly within the bounds set by law and the Constitution. We ask for your continued interest in the upcoming constitutional proceedings.

July 9, 2026

Legal Representatives for Former President Yoon Suk Yeol