The eight Constitutional Court justices. / Yonhap News.

Moon Hyung-bae admits: "I did not watch the State Council CCTV footage"—Controversy erupts over the legitimacy of President Yoon's impeachment

Public opinion suggests that Moon, having confessed to a "blindfolded judgment," has opened the door to a retrial.

"They constructed a forced logic that there was a constitutional violation due to lack of procedure, knowing full well that martial law is an inherent presidential authority."

"Now, anyone who sees the CCTV footage cannot help but conclude that a State Council meeting was indeed held."

Yoon's legal team tells Finance Today: "There was an atmosphere where the Constitutional Court would not accept evidence from President Yoon's side."

"An arrest without reading the Miranda rights is invalid... A decision that excludes key evidence is also subject to retrial."

Following the de facto admission by former Constitutional Court Justice Moon Hyung-bae that he participated in what has been called a "blindfolded" ruling, legal opinions have emerged suggesting that criminal liability could be pursued against all the justices involved in the decision to remove President Yoon Suk-yeol from office.

In a video released by the YouTube channel Lee Bong-kyu TV on the 24th, lawyer Yoo Seung-soo suggested the possibility of criminal prosecution regarding the eight justices involved in the impeachment trial of former President Yoon Suk-yeol. He stated, "These were individuals who dreamed of insurrection through an unconstitutional court decision. Engaging in illegal judgment, seeing only what they wanted to see, and actively distorting what they did see—all of this constitutes an abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights."

Lawyer Yoo criticized the court directly, noting, "They should have requested and secured the CCTV footage while making such a significant judgment, but they failed to do so." He added, "These are the people who committed insurrection; they are the ones acting unconstitutionally, and they are the ones who should be impeached by a court decision," while also touching upon the possibility of a retrial.

"When new evidence is discovered, a Constitutional Court decision can be retried," he said, identifying the CCTV footage as a crucial element that could lead to such a process.

Specifically, he explained, "(Left-wing forces and biased judges) forced the impeachment decision by attaching a claim that procedural requirements were not met—that is, they constructed a logic as if the declaration of martial law was a constitutional violation because no State Council meeting was held. Now that the decisive evidence, the CCTV, has emerged, anyone who sees it would conclude that a State Council meeting did take place. Since the procedural requirements were met, this constitutes new, critical evidence that could change the final conclusion, making a request for a retrial possible."

However, he also asserted, "Whether the conditions for declaring martial law were met is not, in fact, a criterion for (Constitutional Court) judgment, because the President has the inherent authority to declare martial law."

He continued, "The facts that a State Council meeting was held at the time and that certain cabinet members were assembled for discussion were already contained in the testimonies, even without viewing the CCTV. Given the timeline, it is likely that even investigative agencies only secured the footage after the impeachment decision. While it is possible that Moon Hyung-bae did not see it, there is no discrepancy between the CCTV content and the existing testimonies of cabinet members; therefore, he should not have made such a decision even if he hadn't watched the footage." This logic suggests that just as ordinary citizens are not exempt from legal liability for breaking the law by claiming ignorance, those who make the grave decision to strip a head of state of their authority cannot be free from legal responsibility if they failed to examine even the most critical evidence.

Regarding the significance of the CCTV, he added, "If there were no CCTV, it might have been deemed reasonable to interpret that no State Council meeting took place, despite the testimonies of the cabinet members at the time, by twisting the situation. But now that our citizens have seen the CCTV and can see that a meeting clearly occurred, there is a strong consensus that these people must be held accountable."

He stated, "The reason Moon Hyung-bae admitted to not watching the CCTV was that, instead of repenting for his mistake, he was touring and promoting the impeachment of President Yoon as a massive achievement. When Shin Min-hyang, representative of the Student and Parents Human Rights Protection Association (Hak-In-Yeon), asked him, he was caught off guard and admitted it. If this issue is not corrected, Moon Hyung-bae’s crime will end up being recorded as his merit."

To this, Dr. Lee Bong-kyu commented, "In soccer, there are 90 minutes of defense, conceding goals, counter-attacking, and various other scenes. Boxing also has many dramatic moments up to the 10th round. The fight of President Yoon Suk-yeol and the martial law issue are entering a new round. A decisive trigger has been pulled."

Previously, on the 23rd, as Moon was leaving a lecture held at the Seongdong-gu Office in Seoul, he was asked by Representative Shin of Hak-In-Yeon if he had watched the State Council CCTV footage. He flatly replied, "I did not." When she followed up by asking if he had made his ruling after watching it, he replied again, "I did not."

This is being perceived by the public as an admission that the Constitutional Court decided to remove a democratically elected president without verifying one of the most critical pieces of physical evidence—the State Council CCTV. This has led to a flood of criticism that the legal foundation for the Court’s decision was fundamentally flawed.

In its ruling (2024Heon-Na-8) handed down on April 4th, the Constitutional Court stated, "It is difficult to view that a State Council meeting was substantially held based solely on the appearance of cabinet members gathered at a certain location."

This served as the basis for claiming that the State Council did not undergo the substantial procedures required by the Constitution, which was the core argument for why former President Yoon's martial law declaration lacked procedural legitimacy. Most media outlets reported in unison that no State Council meeting had taken place, and even the few that did report on it focused on the narrative that it was not a "proper" meeting, leading to public misunderstanding.

However, the situation turned around on October 13th when the CCTV footage was made public for the first time during the trial of former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo for alleged collusion in insurrection, held at the 33rd Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The released CCTV footage showed cabinet members sharing opinions, receiving documents, and President Yoon explaining the purpose of the martial law in the presidential reception room, hallway, and conference room just before the declaration on December 3rd of last year.

Some cabinet members had been waiting for the meeting in the presidential office two hours prior, and then-Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun was seen counting attendees to verify a quorum. Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who had previously claimed he "never received the (proclamation) document," was also seen sitting at the table, reviewing documents, and exchanging opinions with Minister Lee Sang-min while pointing at details in the text.

While the Special Prosecution team for Insurrection interpreted this as the Minister and Prime Minister discussing measures to cut off electricity and water, critics argued that this was a classic case of "same bed, different dreams," and pointed out that they had overlooked the fact that the external requirements for a State Council meeting were clearly being met. The logic follows that if the Constitutional Court, including Moon, had carefully examined the key physical evidence (the CCTV), it is highly likely they would not have reached the decision to remove him from office, and had the President not been removed, the Special Prosecution team would never have been formed. This is also why a significant segment of the public remains unable to accept the impeachment, as the same facts are being interpreted in contradictory ways.

The newspaper reported that legal counsel for former President Yoon Suk-yeol stated in a phone call with Finance Today, "We understand that the recently released CCTV footage was not handled during the trial process," adding, "There was an atmosphere where the court was reluctant to accept evidence presented by the President's legal team."

A lawyer formerly with the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office explained the gravity of this case in a phone call with *Han-Mi Ilbo* by comparing it to the "Miranda rights." He said, "The Miranda rights, which dictate that investigative agencies must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and to counsel upon arrest, are so important that failure to provide this notice can render the arrest invalid. In this case, the court made an enormous decision to oust the President of a country without reviewing evidence that was mandatory to verify. If that evidence contains decisive details that could prove the innocence of the removed former president, it is judged that this could certainly be grounds for a retrial."

President Yoon Suk-yeol seated in the Constitutional Court. / Yonhap News.

Han-Mi Ilbo Shorts Video: Moon Hyung-bae admits: "I did not watch the State Council CCTV"

https://youtube.com/shorts/KcvFmFZYbOo?si=iVC_lC_lt0BY_spd