Bangooliunni

🚨🚨 Shocking News from South Korea Former President Yoon Suk-yeol faces the death penalty due to false testimony by former Army Special Warfare Commander Kwak Jong-geun. Trial Date: January 26, 2027 Before the trial, Kwak Jong-geun met with Democratic Party members Park Sun-won and Kim Byung-joo, where he was allegedly persuaded or coerced—you can see this in the video. [Detailed Article] Former President Yoon Suk-yeol presents a 79-minute defense; verdict for ‘insurrection ringleader’ charge set for January 26 next year. This stems from false testimony provided by former Commander Kwak Jong-geun. The appellate court verdict for former President Yoon Suk-yeol—indicted as the ringleader of an insurrection in connection with the December 3 emergency martial law declaration—is scheduled for late January next year. On the 5th, the 12-1 Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judges Lee Seung-cheol, Jo Jin-gu, and Kim Min-ah) announced that the verdict for former President Yoon, former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, and others accused of insurrection would be delivered on January 26 of next year at 2:30 PM. This comes approximately 11 months after the first-instance ruling on February 19 of this year. The final arguments, which spanned three sessions beginning on the 29th of last month, concluded today. Previously, the special counsel team investigating the insurrection, led by Cho Eun-seok, requested the death penalty for former President Yoon—the same sentence sought during the first trial. Prosecutors also requested life imprisonment for former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun and a 30-year prison sentence for former Defense Intelligence Command Chief Noh Sang-won. In his 79-minute final statement, former President Yoon reiterated his argument that the declaration of emergency martial law did not constitute insurrection, asserting that its purpose was to alert the public to the opposition party’s unilateral budget cuts, legislative maneuvers, and serial impeachment attempts against government officials. Approximately 11 months after the first-instance verdict, Yoon—in a 79-minute final statement—again characterized the martial law declaration as a "message-driven" action. "I was aghast," Yoon said, "as the major opposition party—having already engaged in a series of politically motivated and 'shielding' impeachments—sought to impeach the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection (who was investigating hiring irregularities at the National Election Commission and the leaking of military secrets regarding the deployment of the THAAD missile defense system), as well as the Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office and other key officials. Furthermore, they unilaterally slashed the budget for critical surveillance, reconnaissance, and data-link capabilities essential for countering North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats." He added, "I concluded that this situation had reached a state of national emergency that could no longer be left unaddressed." He continued, "While they had been abusing their constitutional powers, I conceived of declaring emergency martial law—an action taken strictly within the framework of the Constitution." He explained, "It was intended as an 'appeal-style' declaration of martial law, designed to awaken the public, and I insisted that the deployment of military forces be kept to an absolute minimum." "There was no attempt to neutralize constitutional institutions such as the National Assembly or the National Election Commission," he argued, "nor was there any instance of the military or police exercising oppression or violence against citizens, lawmakers, or public officials." He concluded, "In short, a president’s exercise of constitutional authority—which ultimately yielded to the political control of the National Assembly—cannot constitute the crime of insurrection." Former President Yoon also reiterated his claim that, had he not been removed from office through the impeachment process by the Constitutional Court, state affairs would have been restored to normalcy. He argued, “Once martial law was lifted, the major opposition party began pushing for impeachment and framing the situation as an insurrection. Yet, following that, the President’s approval rating and public opposition to impeachment actually climbed well past 50%.” He added, “Rallies opposing impeachment were 10 to 20 times larger than those in favor, and a great number of high school students, university students, and young people joined in opposing impeachment and supporting the declaration of martial law—a development that amplified the anxiety of the major opposition party and those seeking to subvert the constitutional order.” He continued, “Had I not been suspended from my duties due to the impeachment process, and had I been able to explain to the public—more frequently and in greater detail—the unconstitutional overreach of the major opposition party and the true nature of those attempting to subvert the system, I believe the collapsed constitutional order and the paralyzed state of governance could have been, to some extent, restored.” On this day, former President Yoon also strongly denied the special counsel team’s claim that his declaration of emergency martial law was motivated by a desire to establish a long-term dictatorship. He asked, “If I had truly intended to stage a coup—deploying the military en masse and maintaining martial law for an extended period—why would I have sent personnel to the National Election Commission (NEC) immediately after the declaration to conduct a security check?” He explained, “Since it was clear that martial law would soon be lifted by the major opposition party, the intention was simply to quickly verify whether the basic security systems were functioning properly and to seek improvements if any issues were found.” He further emphasized, “I never once contemplated a long-term dictatorship; the only power I held was that granted by law—and even that was under circumstances that made it difficult to exercise fully.” Former President Yoon argued, “The special prosecutor claims that I—while somewhat intoxicated at a dinner or a drinking gathering—spoke of ‘emergency powers’ in front of others, and asserts that this was part of a meticulous plan to discuss or recruit participants for the imposition of martial law.” He countered, “If I were indeed talking about ‘emergency powers’ while under the influence, it actually serves as proof that I was not contemplating anything like martial law at the time.” He added, “If one were truly planning such a thing, wouldn’t one have to test the waters while drinking, and then—if someone seemed receptive—follow up while sober to seek their opinion and hold a proper discussion? I have no recollection whatsoever of what I might have said while intoxicated; how could I possibly have discussed martial law or recruited accomplices in such a state?” Furthermore, addressing the first-instance court’s ruling—which interpreted his public address about “rooting out pro-North Korean forces” as evidence of an intent to neutralize the National Assembly—Yoon asked, “The Democratic Party and the current administration are now calling for the ‘eradication of insurrectionist forces.’ Do they mean to eliminate them outside the scope of law and due process, or are they simply advocating for criticizing, monitoring, and handling them according to the law?” Criticizing the government, he remarked, “The country is truly in a crisis.” His defense counsel invoked the “Dreyfus affair.” Former President Yoon also leveled criticism at the current administration and the ruling party. He remarked that “the arrogance of power has reached its peak,” adding that “there are many political figures who claim that the cases brought against them are the result of fabricated prosecutions.” He further argued, “They seek to punish judges whose rulings they dislike, heap insults upon the head of the judiciary, and even threaten impeachment,” warning that “the judicial system—a cornerstone of modern civilization built up over many years—is now collapsing.” “Seeing all this, it becomes clear that the nation is in a state of crisis,” he said. “I feel as though we are all walking through the heart of a great tribulation.” In their closing arguments, the defense team for former President Yoon drew a parallel to the case of Alfred Dreyfus—a French Jewish officer in the late 19th century who was wrongfully imprisoned after being falsely accused of espionage, only to be exonerated in a retrial—stating, “The guilt that a whipped-up public once took for granted crumbled in the face of the truth.” They reiterated, “The truth is that there was no ‘insurrection’—neither at the National Election Commission nor at the National Assembly—and where there is no insurrection, there can be no treason,” asserting that “former President Yoon declared emergency martial law in an effort to restore a free Republic of Korea, where the people are the true masters.” As the trial concluded for the day, former President Yoon smiled and shook hands with his defense attorneys. To one of the lawyers, he remarked, “Please bring me plenty of good books—I’m quite fond of history books.” He also remarked, “You know, things like war, and so on.” Addressing the supporters in the gallery, he expressed his gratitude, saying, “Thank you all for coming despite the cold weather,” and added, “Your support has been a great source of strength for those of us standing trial.” He further told his supporters, “South Korea is a nation governed by the rule of law—please, give a round of applause for the Special Prosecutor as well.” The supporters responded with applause, calling out, “We love you, Mr. President!” and “Stay strong!” Former President Yoon and others were indicted on charges of instigating an insurrection—with the intent to subvert the constitutional order—through the declaration of emergency martial law on December 3rd. In February of this year, the court of first instance sentenced the former president to life imprisonment, ruling that his act of deploying the military to the National Assembly met the legal criteria for the crime of insurrection: specifically, an “intent to subvert the constitutional order” and the act of “instigating an insurrection.” Reporter Kwon Yoon-hee n.news.naver.com/article/081… @jeancummings121 @nicksortor @carlahsands @fredfleitz @Paula_White @alexandr3_x @hawleymo @mirandadevine @vdhanson @DAIWA7777777 @Wangwenhaha0518 @nknewsorg @BellaAmore_USA @KevinMc44023286 @StellarArtoisGB @jennifereeser @TheJudge96 @TheGrayOG