Ex-president Yoon's legal team renews fight against broadcast rule yet again
Published: 29 Oct. 2025, 19:46
Updated: 30 Oct. 2025, 14:23
Former President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the first trial hearing on charges including obstruction of official duties and abuse of power at the Seoul Central District Court in southern Seoul on Sept. 26. [YONHAP]
Former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s legal team has once again asked the court to request a constitutional review of the “mandatory court broadcast” clause included in the special investigation law on insurrection, marking the third such request.
Yoon’s lawyers filed the motion with the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Agreement Division 25, according to legal sources on Wednesday. The division handles Yoon’s trial on charges of leading an insurrection.
A request for a constitutional review allows a court to ask the Constitutional Court to determine whether a law applied in an ongoing trial violates the Constitution. If the request is accepted, the trial is suspended until the Constitutional Court issues its decision.
Yoon’s legal team argued that Article 11, Clauses 4 and 7 of the Special Counsel Act, which requires live broadcasting of first-instance trials except in cases involving national security concerns, violates the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
“Live broadcasting of court proceedings could subject the trial to excessive public pressure,” the lawyers said. “Supporters of certain political parties could expose personal information or issue threats and criticism, and even minor remarks could invite ridicule.
Former President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the first trial hearing on charges including obstruction of official duties and abuse of power at the Seoul Central District Court in southern Seoul on Sept. 26. [NEWS1]
“If judges become conscious of public reactions, their independence could be compromised. Making the entire trial process public could turn the judiciary into a target of political attacks.”
Regarding witness examinations, the team added that “testifying publicly in a case involving insurrection charges could cause extreme stress, leading some witnesses to lie or avoid testimony to escape public backlash.”
The motion also challenges Article 25 of the special counsel act, which allows for plea bargaining — a system enabling leniency for those who voluntarily cooperate, confess or report offenders.
This is not Yoon’s first attempt to challenge the law’s constitutionality. His team on Sept. 8 made a similar request to the same court, claiming that by granting investigative powers to a special counsel, the legislature infringed upon the executive branch’s constitutional authority and violated the separation of powers.
They filed another motion on Sept. 30 with the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Agreement Division 35, which is handling Yoon’s case on obstruction of official duties.
That request argued that vague wording in the law — such as “interference or delay in investigation or trial”— could lead to arbitrary interpretation, and that the special counsel’s appointment process could be swayed by political interests.
Separately, Yoon’s team has already filed a constitutional complaint directly with the Constitutional Court, which has passed the preliminary review stage and is now under formal consideration.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
BY JEONG JAE-HONG [[email protected]]





with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)