Former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who faces charges as the leader of insurrection in connection with the Dec. 3 martial law, was sentenced to life in prison on the 19th in the first trial. Yoon's side had argued in essence that "how could a president start an insurrection," but the court cited a 377-year-old ruling that led to the execution of an English king to find the insurrection charge established.
At the sentencing hearing in the case charging Yoon as the leader of insurrection, the Criminal Agreement Division 25 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Jee Kui-youn, Director General judge) sentenced the former president to life in prison.
The bench found that the former president's actions at the time—such as declaring the Dec. 3 martial law and sending the military to the National Assembly to blockade it—met the Criminal Act's elements of insurrection, namely a "purpose of undermining the constitutional order" and a "riot." While declaring martial law itself may not constitute insurrection, if the purpose is to paralyze the functions of constitutional organs, insurrection is established. The court said the crux of the case was sending the military to the National Assembly.
◇ "In the Middle Ages, the view spread that a king could not commit insurrection"
Article 87 of the Criminal Act provides that "those who raise a riot with the intent to exclude state power from all or part of the territory of the Republic of Korea or to undermine the constitutional order shall be punished." Article 91 further defines undermining the constitutional order as "abolishing the functions of the Constitution or the law without procedures prescribed by the Constitution or the law" and "by coercion overthrowing or making it impossible for a state organ established by the Constitution to exercise its powers."
To explain the legal principles related to Article 91 of the Criminal Act, the bench went back to the Roman era. Presiding Judge Jee said, "In the Roman era, acts that disrupted the basic order of the state were punished as insurrection," adding, "By the imperial period, a tendency emerged to equate the state with the emperor, and even acts of treason against the emperor came to be punished as insurrection."
Jee continued, "In the Middle Ages in Europe, this tendency grew stronger, and betrayals against one's liege were punished as treason," adding, "The bench has confirmed that, over time, a strong perception spread in the Middle Ages that a king or monarch himself could not commit treason or insurrection."
◇ "In the Charles I ruling, the fact that 'the king committed treason against the state' was recognized"
Presiding Judge Jee said, "The case that served as the turning point was that of Charles I, king of England." Jee went on, "After Parliament emerged in Britain, conflicts arose between the king and Parliament over issues such as tax collection, and eventually Charles I of England, angered by a resolution in which Parliament asked him to correct 200 of his wrongs, personally led troops to storm the Houses of Parliament and forcibly dissolved it on the spot," adding, "Through this civil war, Charles I was ultimately sentenced to death for treason and other offenses and was executed."
Presiding Judge Jee said, "If you look at the ruling then, it clearly recognized the fact that the king committed treason against the state," adding, "From this point, the idea of crimes against the king gradually shifted, and it became widely accepted that even if the king attacked Parliament, which holds delegated sovereignty from the people, such an act would infringe sovereignty and constitute treason." Jee added, "Thereafter, through the 18th and 19th centuries, insurrection came to be reflected in various countries as a crime that threatens the existence of the state."
Jee continued, "The so-called insurrection with the purpose of undermining the constitutional order under subparagraph 2 of Article 91 of the Criminal Act can be committed by a president," adding, "A representative example would be a president mobilizing the military to forcibly occupy Parliament or to arrest lawmakers."
◇ Charles I, a believer in the divine right of kings… Cromwell executed him and established a republic
Charles I upheld the divine right of kings, the belief that a monarch's authority is granted directly by God. He held that royal authority was not subordinate to secular Parliament or the law. When the English Parliament, before collecting taxes in 1628, demanded in the Petition of Right a ban on taxation without parliamentary consent, he approved it for the moment. However, in 1629 he ignored the Petition of Right and dissolved Parliament, then ruled and levied taxes without Parliament's consent until 1640.
Conflict between Charles I and Parliament led to the English Civil War in 1642, and Oliver Cromwell organized an army to fight the Royalists. After the war ended in a victory for the Parliamentarians, Cromwell executed Charles I in 1649 and established a republic. Cromwell later assumed office as Lord Protector for life and imposed a military dictatorship. After Cromwell's death, Charles II ascended the throne in 1660, restoring the monarchy.