Court to rule on ex-President Yoon's obstruction of arrest charges on Jan. 16

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol attends a trial related to his martial law declaration last year at Seoul Central District Court, Sept. 26. Joint Press Corps

A court said Tuesday it will deliver its verdict next month on whether former President Yoon Suk Yeol obstructed justice by blocking investigators from detaining him over his short-lived imposition of martial law.

The sentencing hearing will be held Jan. 16, the bench overseeing his trial at the Seoul Central District Court said, citing a law that requires the first ruling to be delivered within six months of an indictment by the special counsel team that investigated his case.

It will be the first verdict from the four cases Yoon is standing trial for in connection with his December 2024 declaration of martial law. Also, it will come two days before his arrest period expires.

Yoon has been indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, violating the rights of nine Cabinet members who were not called to a meeting to review his martial law plan, drafting and destroying a revised proclamation after the decree was lifted, and ordering the deletion of secure phone records.

The indictments were filed by special counsel Cho Eun-seok's team on July 17. The bench said it plans to conclude hearings for the case on Dec. 26 with the team's sentencing recommendation and the defendant's final statement.

Yoon's lawyers argued the verdicts should be delivered after a separate bench concludes its trial on his insurrection and abuse of power charges stemming from the decree.

That trial is scheduled to wrap up in early January and produce a verdict in February.

The judge dismissed the claim, however, saying the case in question is not directly related to whether the martial law declaration amounted to an insurrection.

The judge added that changes to the schedule cannot be ruled out in the event other issues arise during the deliberation process.

Yoon again defended himself in court, saying a president's declaration of martial law is not a matter subject to judicial review.

"If in the insurrection case it is ruled that it did not constitute an insurrection, the president's judgment must be respected, removing the basis for a violation of the right to review at a Cabinet meeting," he said.