Former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was brought to trial on charges of being the leader of an insurrection, was sentenced to life in prison on the 19th in the first trial.
The 25th criminal division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Jee Kui-youn) recognized that the Dec. 3 emergency martial law constituted insurrection under the Criminal Act and sentenced former President Yoon to life in prison.
On the reasons for sentencing, the court said, "The emergency martial law (declared by former President Yoon) caused enormous social expense, and it is hard to find any sign that the defendant has expressed an apology for that part," adding, "During the course of this trial, the defendant also refused to appear without any particular reason."
It added, "However, it does not appear to have been planned in a very meticulous way. Most of the plans ended in failure," noting that former President Yoon has no prior criminal record, served as a public official for a long time, and is currently 65, a relatively advanced age.
The following is the full text of the court's reasons for sentencing.
Lastly, I will briefly state the reasons for sentencing for the defendants found guilty. I will briefly state the common reasons for sentencing.
Insurrection is an act that destroys the nation's existence and constitutional functions and denies the legal order itself. The Criminal Act provides a fairly high statutory penalty for insurrection, even though it is a crime of danger.
In our Criminal Act, most crimes with high penalties are regulated only when they produce some result, such as homicide, but uniquely for insurrection, a high penalty is imposed for the act of causing a threat itself. This is because, in itself, it is extremely dangerous.
The defendants' acts of insurrection ignored lawful procedures and, by ultimately using violent means, made it impossible for the National Assembly to exercise its powers, fundamentally damaging the core values of democracy and thus warranting strong condemnation.
Beyond these general circumstances, what this court finds most regrettable is that the declaration of emergency martial law in this case and the ensuing actions by the military and police severely undermined the political neutrality of the military and police, lowered Korea's political standing and external credibility in the international community, and as a result our society is now politically divided and experiencing extreme confrontation.
A presidential election was held again, and large-scale investigations and trials are underway for countless people—an enormous number of people—related to follow-up measures after the declaration of emergency martial law in this case, and many who appeared in this courtroom have even shed tears as they strongly appealed the harm.
This social expense, in the view of this court as well, is an immense harm beyond calculation.
Also, soldiers, police officers, and public officials who actually carried out measures under the declaration of emergency martial law in this case, following the defendants' orders or involvement, faced substantial social criticism.
They must also bear legal responsibility. The trust that soldiers, police officers, and public officials place in the lawfulness and legitimacy of their superiors' orders has been damaged.
What fault could there be for the many members of the military and police?
Although they can be held criminally liable under the Criminal Act, because of the defendants' mistaken momentary judgment, some are already detained, their families are suffering, and many public officials who could have completed their military or police service without incident are all undergoing enormous hardship—this seems likely to become a great pain for our society, and even judging from the ongoing circumstances, such a situation appears likely to continue for a considerable period.
Even in light of these circumstances, this court had no choice but to take them into account as the defendants' general circumstances for sentencing.
Next, I will address the individual reasons for sentencing.
First, regarding defendant Yoon Suk-yeol. The defendant directly and proactively planned the crime and involved many people in it. The emergency martial law caused enormous social expense, and it is hard to find any sign that the defendant has expressed an apology for that part. The defendant also refused to appear without any particular reason during the progress of this trial.
However, it does not appear to have been planned in a very meticulous way. There are indications that the use of physical force was to be restrained to the maximum. It was almost impossible to find instances of carrying live ammunition or using direct physical force or violence. Most of the plans ended in failure, the defendant had no prior criminal record before this offense, served as a public official for a long period, and is currently 65, a relatively advanced age.
Next is defendant Kim Yong-hyun. The defendant proactively prepared this emergency martial law, planned in advance to deploy the military to the National Assembly, the National Election Commission, polling places, and the Democratic Party of Korea headquarters, and appears to have even drawn up a separate plan to unilaterally conduct an investigation into alleged election fraud. It also appears the defendant encouraged, from the side, defendant Yoon Suk-yeol's irrational resolve.
However, defendant Kim Yong-hyun also appears to have tried to restrain the use of physical force as much as possible, and most of the plans ended in failure. The defendant had no prior criminal record before this offense, served as a public official for a long period, and is currently 65, a relatively advanced age.
Next is defendant Noh Sang-won. Together with defendant Kim Yong-hyun, the defendant drew up meticulous plans regarding investigations into alleged election fraud and, despite being a civilian, brought in many people, including agents from the Defense Security Command, by flaunting personal influence, causing harm. The defendant appears to have discussed overall matters related to the emergency martial law and to have played a leading role.
However, a separate trial is currently underway, and if it were consolidated and adjudicated together, there is a need to consider equity. Above all, the defendant did not directly participate in the riotous acts themselves, such as deploying the military. These parts were also taken into account as favorable factors in sentencing.
Next is defendant Cho Ji-ho. In the case of defendant Cho Ji-ho, despite being the overall head of the police, the defendant not only failed to thoroughly review the proclamation but also used it as grounds to block access to the National Assembly, and it is difficult to find circumstances showing the protection of civilians. Rather, the police were made to help the military enter the National Assembly. The defendant even became involved in deploying personnel to the National Election Commission.
However, there are circumstances indicating the defendant learned of facts such as the military's deployment to the National Assembly only on the day martial law was declared. The period of restricting access to the National Assembly appears to have been relatively short. It does not appear the defendant gave detailed instructions on each specific matter. The defendant served as a police officer for a long time, has no prior criminal record, and suffers from blood cancer, with health being considerably poor.
Next is defendant Kim Bong-shik. Following the instructions of defendants Yoon Suk-yeol and Cho Ji-ho, defendant Kim Bong-shik also directly led the deployment of police to the National Assembly, the closure of entrances to the National Assembly, and the blocking of access to the National Assembly by people including members of the National Assembly. In particular, the defendant is subject to strong criticism for involving even the National Assembly Guard, whose task and duty is to guard the National Assembly, in restricting access to the National Assembly.
However, the defendant learned of facts such as the military's deployment to the National Assembly only on the day martial law was declared, allowed access to the National Assembly for a short time, and appears in particular to have refrained from the use of physical force. The defendant served as a police officer for a long time and has no prior criminal record.
Next is defendant Mok Hyun-tae. Despite being the head of the National Assembly Guard, who should protect the National Assembly, the defendant tried to control access to the National Assembly, including attempting to restrict even the speaker's access. Even after receiving clear objections from National Assembly Secretariat staff, the defendant continued to participate in restricting access, which is not free from criticism.
However, defendant Mok Hyun-tae was merely a commander at the senior superintendent level. In an urgent situation, it would have been difficult to clearly assess the lawfulness of instructions from defendants Cho Ji-ho or Kim Bong-shik, or the legality of the emergency martial law and proclamation, and refuse those orders.
It appears the defendant even secretly allowed some lawmakers or National Assembly officials to enter the National Assembly. The defendant served as a police officer for a long time and has no prior criminal record.
These circumstances were taken into account as individual factors for sentencing.
Accordingly, this court will pronounce the sentences on the defendants. All defendants, please stand briefly.
I will now pronounce the order.
Defendant Yoon Suk-yeol is sentenced to life in prison.
Defendant Kim Yong-hyun is sentenced to 30 years in prison. Defendant Noh Sang-won is sentenced to 18 years in prison.
Defendant Cho Ji-ho is sentenced to 12 years in prison. Defendant Kim Bong-shik is sentenced to 10 years in prison. Defendant Mok Hyun-tae is sentenced to 3 years in prison.
Defendant Kim Yong-gun and defendant Yoon Seung-young are found not guilty.