Former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was brought to trial on charges of being the leader of an insurrection in connection with the Dec. 3 martial law crisis, was sentenced to life imprisonment in the first trial. It is the first-trial conclusion handed down 443 days after the declaration of martial law on Dec. 3, 2024.
The 25th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Jee Kui-youn) on the 19th sentenced former President Yoon to life in prison at the sentencing hearing for the case of alleged leadership of an insurrection. The special counsel for the insurrection sought the death penalty for the former president at the sentencing hearing on Jan. 13.
◇ "The Dec. 3 martial law constitutes both 'purpose of disrupting the constitutional order' and 'riot'"
On the requirements for insurrection, the court found that the former president's conduct met the Criminal Act's "purpose of disrupting the constitutional order" and constituted a "riot." The court said, "It is hard to deny that the former president harbored the inner purpose of sending the military to the National Assembly to blockade it and arrest key politicians to obstruct and paralyze parliamentary activities so that the Assembly could not function properly for a considerable period," adding, "It is also acknowledged that troops were sent to cause a riot."
The court said that declaring martial law alone does not immediately constitute the crime of insurrection, but if actions are taken with the purpose of paralyzing the functions of constitutional institutions, the crime can be established. It added that sending the military to the National Assembly after declaring martial law was "the crux of this case," and that "the purpose of disrupting the constitutional order is established."
Regarding the purpose of sending the military to the National Assembly and the National Election Commission, the court said it viewed it as "to arrest key figures such as the National Assembly speaker and the leaders of the ruling and opposition parties so that lawmakers could not deliberate or adopt measures such as (a resolution to lift martial law)."
As for the former president's side arguing that "martial law was declared to overcome a national crisis situation regarding the National Assembly, which had become little different from an anti-state force, and to defend the liberal democratic system," the court pointed out that it was "a claim that confuses justification with purpose," adding, "One cannot steal a candle just because one reads the Bible."
The court premised that "even a president can commit the crime of insurrection with the purpose of disrupting the constitutional order," and held that if it was carried out in a way that infringed on the powers of the National Assembly, it could constitute insurrection. It also accepted as fact the special counsel's assertion that "former Minister Kim Yong-hyun gave former Counterintelligence Command chief Yeo In-hyung a list of 14 people to be arrested."
On the requirement of a riot, the court also found that the Dec. 3 martial law rose to a level of force that disturbed the peace of a region. The court said, "The proclamation, the blockade of the National Assembly, the formation and operation of arrest teams, the occupation of the National Election Commission and the removal of servers are, in themselves, acts of rioting," adding, "It is reasonable to view that there was force sufficient to disturb the peace of the entire Republic of Korea or, if not that, of Seoul and the capital area where the National Assembly and the election commission are located."
The court also said it reviewed overseas cases in which an elected president mobilized the military to obstruct the functioning of the legislature, explaining that it is difficult to find such cases in advanced countries and that even in developing countries, there are few cases that led to punishment.
◇ "Soldiers, police and civil servants who carried out their duties suffered enormous harm"
On sentencing, the court weighed heavily that the former president planned the crime and led its execution, and that the scope of those involved was wide. The court said, "The former president directly and proactively planned the crime and involved many people," adding, "Martial law caused a massive social expense, and it is hard to find any sign that the defendant expressed remorse for that part." It also noted that the former president refused to appear in court without particular cause.
The court cited as sentencing factors that the declaration of martial law and the ensuing military and police activities undermined the political neutrality of the armed forces and police, lowered Korea's political standing and external credibility in the international community, and drove society into a state of extreme confrontation.
It went on to mention the early presidential election, follow-up measures after the declaration of martial law, and large-scale investigations and trials, saying, "Such social expense is an immeasurable, colossal harm." It also noted that soldiers, police officers and civil servants who actually carried out the measures following the declaration of martial law came to bear social condemnation and legal responsibility, and that trust in the lawfulness and legitimacy of superiors' orders was damaged.
However, the court said it took into account as favorable sentencing factors that some parts did not appear to be the product of meticulous advance planning, that there were circumstances showing efforts to restrain the use of physical force as much as possible, and that there were few confirmed cases of carrying live ammunition or of direct physical force or violence. It also cited that most of the plans ended in failure, that there was no criminal record, that the defendant had long served as a public official, and that at 65, the defendant is relatively advanced in age. The court did not accept the special counsel's claim that the former president had been preparing for martial law since about a year before, not in Dec. 2024.
The court also offered its view on the legality of the investigation. It held that investigating a sitting president is permissible. Under the Constitution, an incumbent president is not subject to prosecution except for insurrection or treason, but the court viewed that prosecution does not encompass investigation.
The court further held that both the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials and the prosecution had authority to investigate the crime of insurrection in connection with the martial law crisis. Although insurrection is not a direct-investigation target under the relevant laws for either the CIO or the prosecution, they can investigate insurrection as a "related offense" to abuse of authority, and the prosecution can also indict. It rejected the former president's argument that "the CIO's investigation of the former president for insurrection was an unlawful investigation."
◇ Guilty verdicts also for military and police leadership including Kim Yong-hyun and Cho Ji-ho… working-level staff acquitted
The former president was arrested and indicted on Jan. 26 last year on charges of conspiring with former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun and others to incite a riot with the purpose of disrupting the constitutional order by declaring unconstitutional and unlawful martial law despite no signs of a wartime or emergency situation or a comparable national emergency. The indictment also included allegations that troops and police were mobilized to blockade the National Assembly to obstruct a vote to lift martial law, and that attempts were made to arrest and detain key political figures such as National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik, President Lee Jae-myung (then leader of the Democratic Party of Korea), and former People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon, as well as employees of the National Election Commission.
On the same day, the court found former Minister Kim guilty of engaging in key duties of insurrection and sentenced him to 30 years in prison. Former Defense Intelligence Command chief Noh Sang-won was sentenced to 18 years, former Korean National Police Agency Commissioner Cho Ji-ho to 12 years, former Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Commissioner Kim Bong-shik to 10 years, and former National Assembly Security Division Chief of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Mok Hyun-tae to 3 years. The court recognized the establishment of their insurrection offenses as well. At the Jan. 13 sentencing hearing, the special counsel sought 20 years for former Commissioner Cho, 15 years for former Commissioner Kim, 30 years for former commander Noh, and 12 years for former security division chief Mok.
By contrast, the court acquitted former Ministry of National Defense Investigation Headquarters investigative task force chief Kim Yong-gun (retired Army colonel), saying, "There is no evidence to recognize that he joined the plan of former commander Noh Sang-won." Former Korean National Police Agency National Office of Investigation planning and coordination officer Yoon Seung-young was also acquitted, with the court saying, "It is hard to view that there was cooperation despite knowing the counterintelligence command's plan to arrest key politicians."