The appellate trial in the case accusing former President Yoon Suk-yeol and former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun of being ringleaders of an insurrection resumed after about a month. The special counsel investigating the insurrection case asked the court to sentence former President Yoon to death, the same as the first-trial sentencing request.
The Criminal Division 12-1 of the Seoul High Court (High Court Judges Lee Seung-cheol, Cho Jin-gu and Kim Min-a) opened an appellate hearing on insurrection charges against former President Yoon and the former Minister Kim at 10 a.m. on the 25th. Former President Yoon, former Minister Kim, former Defense Intelligence Command Commander Noh Sang-won, and former 3rd Army Corps Military Police Commander Kim Yong-gun appeared in court.
The four filed motions to recuse the appellate panel around the first hearing on May 14, halting the appellate proceedings for a time. Former President Yoon's side argued that because Criminal Division 12-1 had earlier found former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo guilty of engaging in important duties related to insurrection, it effectively acknowledged former President Yoon's ringleader charge as guilty as well. The Supreme Court finally rejected the recusal motions on the 12th.
At the hearing, the special counsel's summary of appellate grounds came first. Calling the first-trial life sentence too light, the special counsel asked that former President Yoon be sentenced to death. For former Minister Kim and former Commander Noh, the special counsel also requested sentences matching the first-trial demands—life imprisonment and 30 years, respectively. In the first trial, they were sentenced to 30 years and 18 years, respectively.
The special counsel argued that the first-trial court erred by not recognizing the credibility of key evidence, including former Commander Noh's memo that contained the preparation timing and purpose of the Dec. 3 emergency martial law. In particular, considering the time of writing, contents and context of the "Noh Sang-won notebook," the position is that it must be acknowledged that emergency martial law had been prepared over a considerable period.
The special counsel also pointed out that the first trial's determination—that a declaration of emergency martial law lacking statutory requirements does not immediately constitute insurrection—was a misinterpretation contrary to a Supreme Court en banc precedent. The special counsel said, "This case was planned very meticulously, including co-opting the military starting a year earlier," and added, "The short duration of martial law should not be seen as a mitigating factor; rather, 'not setting a duration' should be treated as an aggravating factor."
Former President Yoon's side maintained its existing claim of a "message-type martial law." An attorney for former President Yoon argued, "Emergency martial law was declared with the intent to alert the public to a constitutional crisis caused by governmental dysfunction and the tyranny of the large opposition party."
The attorney said, "Emergency martial law that lasted only a few hours cannot be insurrection under common sense or the law," adding, "Former President Yoon had no intent whatsoever to maintain martial law for a long period and only deployed a small force to maintain order." The attorney also renewed the claim that the prosecution and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials lacked investigative authority over insurrection, rendering the investigation unlawful.
Former President Yoon's side argued that even if the charges are recognized as guilty, the first-trial life sentence is excessively heavy. The argument is that factors such as former President Yoon expressing regret to the public over the confusion arising from martial law should be taken into account.
The key issues on appeal are the probative value of the "Noh Sang-won notebook" and the timing of former President Yoon and others' plotting of emergency martial law. Based on this notebook, which is said to contain the preparation plan for emergency martial law and post-execution measures, the special counsel views the plotting as occurring in Oct. 2023.
The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 25 (then presiding judge Director General Jee Kui-youn), which handled the first trial, did not recognize the notebook's probative value, citing reasons including difficulty in determining when it was written. On that basis, the court found that former President Yoon decided on martial law on Dec. 1, 2024, two days before the declaration.
In contrast, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 33 (Presiding Judge Director General Lee Jin-gwan) on the 22nd recognized the probative value of the Noh Sang-won notebook while sentencing former Minister of Justice Park Sung-jae to 25 years in prison after finding guilt on engaging in important duties related to insurrection. That panel determined that martial law had been prepared since at least 2023.
Former President Yoon and others are accused of staging a riot with the intent to disrupt the constitutional order by declaring unconstitutional and unlawful emergency martial law despite no signs of war, upheaval or a comparable state of national emergency.