Former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who had paralyzed the constitutional order with a surprise declaration of martial law, was sentenced to life in prison in the first trial on the 19th, and major global media outlets defined the ruling as a landmark event proving the resilience of Korean democracy. At the same time, they agreed it left behind the task of overcoming deep national division.
On the day, major foreign outlets including Reuters, AP and Bloomberg urgently transmitted the news worldwide after the Criminal Agreement Division 25 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Jee Kui-youn) sentenced the former president, indicted on charges of leading an insurrection, to life imprisonment.
Foreign media particularly noted that although prosecutors sought the death penalty, the maximum sentence allowed by law, the court chose life imprisonment. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) noted that Korea has not carried out an execution since 1997 and analyzed that the life sentence constitutes the practical maximum sentence allowed by law. WSJ emphasized that the ruling came swiftly, just over a year after the declaration of martial law, and gave high marks to the decisiveness of Korea's judicial system.
CNN characterized the crisis as a grave threat that sought to dismantle Korean democracy built over decades. Recalling armed troops who entered the National Assembly by helicopter late at night and citizens who physically blocked them, CNN reported that the ruling is a symbolic step tying off one chapter of Korea's biggest political crises. The Guardian, a British left-leaning outlet, likewise pointed out that this is the first case since democratization of an elected head of state receiving a life sentence for insurrection, calling it a stern imposition of responsibility for attempting to incapacitate constitutional institutions.
Foreign media also identified structural flaws in Korean politics as a root cause of the crisis. The Financial Times (FT) argued that Korea's single-term, winner-takes-all presidency has fueled extreme factional conflict. Citing an interview with Jang Young-soo, a professor at the Korea University School of Law, FT reported, "While it is hard to directly compare this crisis with the 1979 military coup by former President Chun Doo-hwan, its impact was great in that it was an attempt to destroy the constitutional order from within the democratic system."
Former Special Warfare Commanding General Chun In-bum said in a BBC interview, "An attempt to solve political problems with military force cannot be justified for any reason." He noted that it was a huge relief there were no casualties under martial law, but emphasized that the military cannot evade responsibility for insurrection by claiming they merely followed superior orders, a solemn lesson left behind.
Bloomberg predicted the ruling would give the Lee Jae-myung administration momentum in state affairs. However, it stressed that to overcome external economic headwinds such as a strong U.S.-centric protectionism and tariff pressure led by U.S. President Donald Trump, the first priority inside Korea is to defuse political hostility. Foreign media agreed that while Korea may have succeeded in legal accountability, unifying a nation split in two remains a difficult task.
The attitude shown by the former president's side during the trial also drew criticism from foreign media. The former president argued innocence, saying it was an exercise of constitutional authority "to save the country from the legislative dictatorship of the giant opposition." But the court did not accept the claim. The New York Times (NYT) reported that the former president's refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing or show remorse likely affected the sentence.