Former President Yoon Suk-yeol greets his supporters before heading to his private residence in Seocho-dong, after leaving his official residence in Hannam-dong, Seoul, on April 11. Yonhap News

The Seoul High Court has accepted a request from former President Yoon Suk-yeol’s legal defense team to allow him to appear via the underground parking lot for his first trial on insurrection charges, scheduled for April 14. It is an unprecedented move for a criminal defendant to appear in court through an underground parking lot. Meanwhile, the Seoul Central District Court in charge of Yoon’s insurrection case, denied a media request to film inside the courtroom during the first trial. These are all unusual decisions that go against both public expectations of justice and established customs.

The Seoul High Court said, “There are many reports of rallies in the neighborhood, so there is a possibility of large crowds gathering.” The court allowed for Yoon’s non-public appearance in consideration of courthouse security and to minimize inconvenience for the public. However, such issues should be addressed by strengthening security measures and strictly cracking down on illegal activities, not by granting special privileges to Yoon.

The decision to prohibit filming in the courtroom is even more inexplicable. According to Supreme Court rules, even if the defendant does not consent, the court can allow filming in the courtroom if it is deemed necessary for the public interest. In the past, filming was allowed during the first trials of former Presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye, as well as during the first trials of former Presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo shortly after a rule amendment. These decisions were made considering national interest, the importance of the cases, and the public interest. The insurrection charges against Yoon are far more serious than the crimes committed by former Presidents Lee and Park. Yet, the court handling Yoon's insurrection case has denied courtroom filming without giving any reason, which inevitably leads to accusations of an unprecedented special privilege.

This is not the first instance of the court's “Yoon Suk-yeol exceptionalism.” It overturned decades of established practice based on "the day" and decided to calculate the detention period based on "time," ultimately deciding to cancel Yoon’s detention. In the trials of former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun and others, witness testimony from intelligence personnel was conducted in private to protect state secrets, and there is a possibility that Yoon’s trial could proceed similarly. We must sternly ask the court whether only the human rights of Yoon, the leader of the insurrection, matter, while the public’s right to know is being ignored.

As the court continues to adopt such a lenient approach, it is no wonder that Yoon, even after being removed from office, continues to openly engage in "residence politics" and acts arrogantly as if he were a hero returning from battle. It is not an exaggeration to say that, by laying out the playing field for Yoon, the court, which should be strictly enforcing judicial authority to uphold the rule of law, constitutional order, and social stability, is instead fueling social turmoil. The court must reflect on whether this is truly the minimum respect owed to the citizens who have spent more than four months in sleepless nights due to Yoon’s insurrection, and whether these are the appropriate actions of a judge presiding over a case that will be recorded in history.