Seoul: A court announced on Tuesday that it will deliver its verdict next month regarding former President Yoon Suk Yeol's alleged obstruction of justice. This charge stems from accusations that Yoon blocked investigators from detaining him following his brief imposition of martial law.

According to Yonhap News Agency, the sentencing hearing is scheduled for January 16, as confirmed by the bench at the Seoul Central District Court. The court cited a legal requirement that mandates the first ruling be delivered within six months of an indictment by the special counsel team that investigated Yoon's case.

This upcoming verdict is the first among four cases that Yoon faces related to his December 2024 martial law declaration. It will be announced just two days before the expiration of his arrest period. Yoon has been indicted on charges that include obstruction of justice, violating the rights of nine Cabinet members by excluding them from a meeting to discuss 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-suk's team on July 17. The court plans to conclude hearings for this case on December 26, which will include the team's sentencing recommendation and Yoon's final statement.

Yoon's defense team argued that the verdicts should be postponed until after a separate bench concludes its trial on his insurrection and abuse of power charges related to the martial law decree. This latter trial is expected to conclude in early January, with a verdict anticipated in February.

However, the presiding judge dismissed this claim, indicating that the obstruction of justice case is not directly linked to the martial law declaration's potential classification as an insurrection. The judge also mentioned that changes to the schedule might occur if other issues arise during deliberations.

In court, Yoon defended his actions, asserting that a presidential declaration of martial law is beyond judicial review. He stated, "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."