Former President Yoon Suk-yeol [Provided by Seoul Central District Court]

Former President Yoon Suk-yeol's legal team has filed a constitutional complaint regarding the provisions that specify the scope of special prosecutor investigations and appointment procedures under the special prosecutor law for sedition.

According to legal circles on the 6th, the former president's legal team filed a constitutional complaint the previous day, requesting a determination of the constitutionality of certain provisions of the special prosecutor law.

Previously, in September of last year, the former president's legal team had requested the Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 35 (Presiding Judge Baek Dae-hyun), which was handling the case of obstruction of official duties by a public official, to refer the special prosecutor law for constitutional review. However, the court dismissed and rejected this request in January.

A constitutional review referral is a system whereby a court, upon its own motion or at the request of a party, refers a law to the Constitutional Court for review if the constitutionality of that law is a prerequisite for the trial.

Specifically, the court dismissed the request for Article 6, Paragraph 4, which specifies the conditions for the special prosecutor's access to presidential records, and Article 13, which defines the authority for press briefings, reasoning that these were not prerequisites for the trial.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the request regarding Article 2, Paragraph 1, which defines the scope of the special prosecutor's investigation, Article 3, which outlines the nomination and appointment process for the special prosecutor, Articles 11, Paragraphs 4, 5, and 7, which mandate trial broadcasts, and Article 25, which provides for reduction or exemption of penalties for those who cooperate with the investigation.

The legal team, disagreeing with the court's decision, has directly filed a constitutional complaint to contest the constitutionality of these provisions once again.

The legal team argued that the provision defining the scope of the special prosecutor's investigation (Article 2, Paragraph 1) violates the constitutional principle of clarity, and the provision regarding the nomination and appointment process for the special prosecutor (Article 3) concentrates the right to nominate special prosecutor candidates to a specific political faction, thus failing to guarantee political neutrality.

They further contended that the provision on access to presidential records (Article 6, Paragraph 4) undermines the purpose of the presidential records protection system, and the provision on press briefings (Article 13) infringes upon the right to a fair trial.

Additionally, they emphasized that the provisions mandating trial broadcasts (Article 11, Paragraphs 4, 5, and 7) and the provisions on reduction or exemption of penalties (Article 25) infringe upon the independence of the judiciary and the independent sentencing authority of judges.

The legal team stated, "Legislative discretion must be exercised within the limits of guaranteeing constitutional fundamental rights," and argued that "each provision of the special prosecutor law for sedition does not merely fall within the scope of legislative policy choices, but rather contains provisions that fundamentally undermine the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the structure of the separation of powers."

Previously, in October of last year, the legal team had filed a constitutional complaint regarding the provisions mandating trial broadcasts (Article 11, Paragraphs 4 and 7) and the provisions on reduction or exemption of penalties (Article 25) under the special prosecutor law for sedition. This case was formally referred for adjudication last month.