Former President Yoon Suk-yeol entering the courtroom. Provided by joint press corps.

Former President Yoon Suk-yeol's side has filed a constitutional appeal against the provisions on mandatory trial broadcasting and plea bargaining stipulated in the special prosecutor law for rebellion.

According to legal circles on the 29th, former President Yoon's legal team filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court on the 24th, requesting a review of the constitutionality of Articles 11(4), 11(7), and Article 25 of the Special Prosecutor Law for Rebellion.

Articles 11(4) and 11(7) of the Special Prosecutor Law for Rebellion stipulate that the first-instance trial of cases indicted by the special prosecutor team must be broadcast.

Furthermore, Article 25 provides that for individuals who confess to crimes or provide key statements and testimony to expose the crimes of others, in relation to the special prosecutor's investigation targets, their punishment may be reduced or exempted.

previously in October, former President Yoon's side raised issues with the same provisions of the special prosecutor law and requested the court presiding over the case of rebellion leadership charges to refer the law for constitutional review.

A referral for constitutional review is a system in which, when the constitutionality of a law is a prerequisite for a trial, the court, ex officio or upon the application of a party, refers the law to the Constitutional Court for review.

If the court decides to refer the law for constitutional review, the Constitutional Court will accept it and proceed with the review process, and the trial will be suspended until the Constitutional Court makes a decision on its constitutionality.

Unlike a referral for constitutional review, a constitutional appeal is a means of examining the inherent flaws of the law itself, regardless of the ongoing trial.

Former President Yoon's side applied for a referral for constitutional review from the court and, separately, also filed a constitutional appeal seeking the Constitutional Court's judgment directly. Questioning the trial procedure can affect the speed of the trial, and raising objections to the special prosecutor's investigative findings is interpreted as an attempt to undermine the admissibility or probative value of evidence that could lead to a guilty verdict.