The draft decision document for the impeachment trial of former President Yoon Suk-yeol has been confirmed to be written by Chief Justice Jeong Hyung-sik, who is the only justice among the eight constitutional justices appointed by former President Yoon.

According to the legal community on the 5th, Justice Jeong took on the role of chief justice in this case through a random electronic allocation before the trial process of the impeachment proceedings of former President Yoon officially began. The chief justice manages the overall flow of the case and is responsible for the draft of the decision.

Justice Jeong, who previously served as the president of the Daejeon High Court, chief judge of the Seoul Administrative Court, and president of the Seoul Rehabilitation Court, has been evaluated as very meticulous in his legal approach. During the trial process of this case, he drew attention by repeatedly posing 'penetrating questions' on key issues.

While the conservative camp had high hopes for Justice Jeong, along with Justice Jo Han-chang and Justice Kim Bok-hyung, who expressed conservative opinions during the impeachment trial of former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, all eight constitutional justices, including these three, delivered opinions in favor of impeachment, namely 'removal from office'.

The unanimous decision of the Constitutional Court has been interpreted as a means to preemptively block the possibility of appeals against the removal and to alleviate inter-faction conflicts that could sharply divide after the impeachment. The Constitutional Court emphasized that it hopes this decision will serve as a starting point for "restoring constitutional order and national unity."

The decision document contains content stating that the declaration of a state of emergency on December 3 violated the procedural requirements set forth by the Constitution and the Emergency Act, and that there were substantial unconstitutional and illegal acts, such as plans to deploy military and police to the National Assembly, the announcement of unconstitutional proclamations, and attempts to search the Election Commission. All justices agreed that former President Yoon's actions were serious enough to justify removal from office.

"There is a need for restrictions on the repeated proposals of impeachment motions"… Three supplementary opinions, no dissenting opinions were observed.

The justices who unanimously agreed on the conclusion left individual supplementary opinions on certain procedural points. Justice Jeong Hyung-sik noted that "there is a need for legislation to limit the repeated proposals of impeachment motions,” while Justices Im Yi-sun and Kim Hyung-doo stated that “the application of the evidentiary rules from criminal procedure law could be relaxed during the impeachment trial process."

On the other hand, Justices Kim Bok-hyung and Jo Han-chang suggested that "there is a need to apply the evidentiary rules more strictly."

All opinions submitted this time are categorized as 'supplementary opinions,' indicating agreement with the conclusion but differences in reasoning or interpretation. There were no 'dissenting opinions' opposing the conclusion or 'separate opinions' that diverged in logic.

A source from the Constitutional Court explained, "It is very rare for all justices to agree on a legal opinion without any disagreements, which further enhances the weight of the decision document."

Image source: Former President Yoon Suk-yeol / News1, Justice Jeong Hyung-sik / News1, News1