Executive Summary
- Former President Yoon Suk-yeol sentenced to five years for unconstitutional martial law declaration.
- Court ruled Yoon obstructed the Corruption Investigation Office (CIO) and destroyed official documents.
- Defense claims regarding national security and procedural exceptions were rejected by the judge.
- Yoon was acquitted of charges related to issuing a misleading statement to foreign media.
SEOUL — The Seoul Central District Court sentenced former South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol to five years in prison on Friday, ruling that his declaration of martial law in December 2024 was unconstitutional and that he obstructed a subsequent corruption investigation. The verdict marks the first time a criminal court has issued such a ruling following the Constitutional Court’s impeachment trial against the former leader.
Presiding Judge Baek Dae-hyun of Criminal Division 35 delivered the sentence, emphasizing that the declaration of martial law violated the Constitution and relevant laws. The court stated that the exercise of national emergency power should occur only in “extremely exceptional circumstances” where no other means exist to resolve a crisis. The judge rejected Yoon’s defense that security concerns justified excluding key State Council members from the decision-making process, noting that legal statutes provide no such exception.
The court found Yoon guilty of four distinct charges, including the obstruction of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). The ruling detailed how the former president utilized security staff to physically block CIO agents from executing an arrest warrant, an act the court deemed an obstruction of official duties. Additionally, Yoon was convicted for approving the destruction of a falsified martial law proclamation document, which the court classified as damaging official records.
Despite the convictions, the court acquitted Yoon on one count related to a presidential statement issued to foreign media. The judges determined that instructing the public relations office to distribute a statement, even if it contained inaccuracies about the constitutional framework, did not constitute an abuse of authority. The court noted that the spokesperson was not under an obligation to verify the factual accuracy of statements provided by the president.
Judicial Ramifications
This sentencing establishes a significant legal precedent regarding the limitations of presidential authority and the procedural rigidity required for emergency powers in South Korea. By rejecting the defense of “political necessity” for bypassing the State Council, the court has reinforced the checks and balances inherent in the nation’s legal framework. As is standard in complex judicial proceedings involving high-profile figures, it is expected that this ruling may face further legal challenges. It is important to note that under the legal system, all individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty through the finalization of the appellate process.
