Former President Yoon Suk-yeol's legal team has filed a constitutional complaint alleging that provisions of the special counsel law on insurrection—including those specifying investigation targets and appointment procedures—are unconstitutional.
According to legal sources on the 6th, Yoon's defense team filed the constitutional complaint the previous day, seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of certain provisions of the special counsel law.
Previously, Yoon's defense team had requested a constitutional review of the special counsel law in September last year from the 35th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Baek Dae-hyun), which was hearing charges including obstruction of special public duty execution. However, the court rejected and dismissed the request in January. Yoon's side is understood to have filed this constitutional complaint directly to challenge the constitutionality once more, refusing to accept that decision.
The defense team argued that the provision defining investigation targets (Article 2, Paragraph 1) violates the constitutional principle of clarity. They also contended that provisions on special counsel recommendation and appointment procedures (Article 3) concentrate nominee recommendation authority in specific political forces, failing to guarantee political neutrality.
Additionally, they argued that the presidential records access provision (Article 6, Paragraph 4) undermines the purpose of the records protection system, while the media briefing provision (Article 13) infringes on the right to a fair trial.
Furthermore, the defense explained that mandatory trial broadcast provisions (Article 11, Paragraphs 4, 5, and 7) and sentence reduction provisions (Article 25) violate judicial independence and judges' independent sentencing authority.
"Legislative discretion must be exercised within the bounds of constitutional rights protection," the defense team stated. "Each provision of the special counsel law on insurrection is not merely a matter of legislative policy choice, but fundamentally undermines the basic rights and separation of powers structure guaranteed by the Constitution."
The defense team had previously filed a constitutional complaint in October last year against the mandatory trial broadcast provisions (Article 11, Paragraphs 4 and 7) and sentence reduction provisions (Article 25) of the special counsel law. That case was referred to formal adjudication last month.