The special counsel on insurrection on the 27th disclosed its reasons for appeal over the first-instance ruling in the case charging former President Yoon Suk-yeol as the leader of an insurrection, saying the court erred in its findings on the prior planning of martial law, the purpose of subverting the constitutional order, and sentencing.
In a press reference released on the 27th, the special counsel argued that the first-instance court viewed the declaration of martial law as an "impulsive decision," narrowly construed the scope of the purpose of subverting the constitutional order, and imposed sentences that were too light given the responsibility and degree of involvement of former President Yoon and others.
The special counsel, premising that martial law was "not a spontaneous response but a planned act prepared meticulously over a long period," said the lower court failed to properly evaluate this even though the purpose of monopolizing and maintaining power was recognized. It also cited as grounds for appeal that the court set "an extremely narrow" scope for assessing the purpose of subverting the constitutional order, a requirement for insurrection.
Specifically, it took issue with the first-instance court's rejection of the special counsel's claim regarding the timing of prior planning for martial law on the grounds that it was difficult to pinpoint when the "Noh Sang-won notebook" was written. The special counsel argued that, considering entries in the notebook on appointments of military commanders and the schedule for National Assembly elections, it is established that former Defense Intelligence Command chief Noh Sang-won, at the latest by December 2023, drafted and planned the initial outline for martial law and wrote it in the notebook.
The special counsel also said the first-instance court made factual errors in finding that former President Yoon decided only on Dec. 1, 2024, to declare martial law impulsively. According to the special counsel, former President Yoon decided to carry out martial law after conducting a final inspection of the readiness of deploying units on Nov. 9, 2024, with former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, former Army Special Warfare Command commander Gwak Jong-geun, former Defense Counterintelligence Command chief Yeo In-hyeong, and former Capital Defense Command commander Lee Jin-woo, set Dec. 3 as the declaration date at a meeting on Nov. 30, and notified each commander the following day.
The special counsel also contested the lower court's failure to recognize the "purpose of monopolizing and maintaining power" in the declaration of martial law. Citing attempts by former President Yoon to establish an emergency legislative body and arrest journalists and legal professionals, as well as the absence of any plan to restore order after martial law, the special counsel argued that he sought to seize legislative power and suppress opposing forces by force to sustain a state of monopolizing and maintaining power.
It further cited as grounds for appeal a misunderstanding of the law regarding the criteria for judging the purpose of subverting the constitutional order. The special counsel said the first-instance court committed both a legal and factual error by judging that purpose solely on whether there was an intent to subdue the National Assembly by mobilizing military forces.
A declaration of martial law is permissible only when situational and necessity requirements are met—such as a national emergency due to war or disturbances, or military necessity requiring the maintenance of public safety and order—but former President Yoon's declaration did not conform to this and thus constituted, in itself, an act of subverting the constitutional order. The special counsel argued that the content and proclamation of the edicts alone carried out acts subverting the constitutional order by infringing on the legislature, the party system, and basic rights of the people, yet the lower court limited its judgment of the purpose of subverting the constitutional order only to a "purpose of subduing the National Assembly by coercion."
On sentencing, the special counsel also pointed out that the lower court failed to properly assess the positions, roles, and degrees of involvement of former President Yoon and others. It called it contradictory that the court acknowledged the fact that, after the National Assembly voted to lift martial law, an instruction was given to the Capital Defense Command commander permitting the use of live ammunition but did not reflect this in sentencing, while it considered as a favorable factor the instruction to the military to refrain from using physical force. The special counsel argued that it should also weigh as aggravating factors that martial law was planned and executed meticulously over a long period and that the defendants continued political activities afterward, causing public division and leaving unfavorable post-crime circumstances.
The special counsel also said the first-instance judgment was based on limited evidence submitted up to the time of the motion to amend the indictment, and that a significant amount of newly obtained material, including evidence related to creating conditions for martial law through unmanned aerial vehicle operations, was not submitted. The special counsel said it will submit additional evidence in the appellate trial so that "a sentence commensurate with the culpability will be imposed."