The Constitutional Court decided on 4th that it "dismisses the defendant President Yoon Suk-yeol" with unanimous agreement from all eight judges. On that day, the court judged that five major acts of unconstitutionality and illegality occurred, including declaration of martial law, deployment of military and police to the National Assembly, issuance of proclamations, search and seizure by the National Election Commission, and attempts to locate legal professionals. The court noted that the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the defendant (President Yoon) constituted a serious violation of law that cannot be tolerated from the perspective of constitutional protection, as it betrayed the trust of the people. All three elements necessary for the dismissal decision in the impeachment trial, including "serious unconstitutional and illegal conduct," "betrayal of public trust," and "necessity for constitutional protection," were recognized.
◇ "The declaration of martial law did not meet both substantive and procedural requirements"
The court judged regarding the December 3rd emergency martial law that it was "in violation of both substantive and procedural requirements." The court stated that to declare emergency martial law, a substantive requirement must be met that, "A state of war, a calamity, or a national emergency equivalent to it must realistically occur in which the country is in a state of military conflict with an enemy or where public order is extremely disturbed to the extent that the execution of administrative and judicial functions is significantly difficult." Furthermore, the court noted that it is also a substantive requirement for declaring emergency martial law that "there is a need to respond to military necessities or to maintain public peace and order."
In relation to this, the court asserted that "the impeachment motion, legislation, and budget review of the National Assembly carried out under the leadership of the opposition cannot be viewed as having realistically triggered a serious crisis situation at the time of the declaration of martial law." It also stated, "The mere existence of allegations of election fraud cannot be considered as having realistically created a serious crisis situation." The court continued, "The defendant (President Yoon) claimed that the paralysis of state affairs caused by the exercise of National Assembly authority or allegations of election fraud must be resolved through political, institutional, and judicial means, and cannot be solved by mobilizing military force."
Accordingly, the court stated that "the defendant (President Yoon) did not stop at declaring martial law but went on to violate the Constitution and laws by mobilizing military and police forces to obstruct the exercise of National Assembly authority," and rejected the defendant's claims of warning martial law and appealing martial law. Thus, all claims from President Yoon's side were dismissed.
Additionally, the court determined that "the defendant (President Yoon) violated the procedural requirements for declaring emergency martial law as stipulated by the Constitution and the Martial Law Act." While the defendant provided a brief explanation of the purpose of the martial law declaration to the Prime Minister and nine ministers, the court pointed out that specific details were not explained, and they were not given the opportunity to express their opinions. The court also noted the absence of the Prime Minister and ministers' signatures on the proclamation of martial law, the failure to announce the implementation date, region, and martial law commander, and the failure to notify the National Assembly without delay.
◇ "Obstruction of National Assembly authority exercise through military and police deployment"
Regarding the deployment of military and police forces to the National Assembly during the December 3rd emergency martial law, the court judged that "the defendant (President Yoon) obstructed the exercise of National Assembly authority by controlling access to the National Assembly for lawmakers while directing them to be forcibly removed," noting that this violated constitutional provisions that granted the National Assembly the right to demand the lifting of martial law and infringed upon the lawmakers' rights to deliberation, voting, and immunity from arrest. The court also stated that during the December 3rd emergency martial law, President Yoon issued an order to check the locations of 14 individuals, including the National Assembly Speaker and party leaders, asserting that it violated the freedom of political activity.
◇ "Proclamation, search and seizure by the Election Commission, and attempts to locate legal professionals are all unconstitutional and illegal"
The court also judged that the proclamation No. 1 issued during the December 3rd emergency martial law "violated constitutional provisions that granted the National Assembly the right to demand the lifting of martial law and provisions regulating political parties by banning the activities of the National Assembly, local councils, and political parties, thus violating principles of representative democracy and separation of powers."
Moreover, regarding the search and seizure of the National Election Commission during the December 3rd emergency martial law, the court deemed that it "violated the principle of warrants by conducting a search and seizure without a warrant and infringed upon the independence of the Election Commission."
Additionally, the court stated that "the defendant (President Yoon) was involved in attempts to locate (key figures) for the purpose of arresting them if necessary, and this included former Supreme Court Chief Justices and former Supreme Court Justices," and concluded that "this puts pressure on current judges to be subject to arrest by the executive branch at any time, thereby undermining the independence of the judicial authority."